A Final, Pantheopsychic Theory of Everything, END (PART 2)

A FINAL, PANTHEOPSYCHIC THEORY OF EVERYTHING: CONCLUSION (PART TWO)

B. HUMAN PERCEPTION IN THE FORM OF LUCIDIC PERCEPTION–HUMAN EXPERIENCE OF THE PREVENTION OR AMELIORATION OF CRUCIFIC CONSCIOUSNESS

“Even at eleven he had observed that things turn out right a ridiculous amount of the time. Not all boats which sail into darkness never find the sun again, or the hand of another child; if life teaches anything at all, it teaches that there are so many happy endings that a man who believes there is no God needs his rationality called into serious question.”

― Stephen King, It (Novel)

1. THE LUCID DREAMER: THE HERO OF EXISTENCE

The Lucid Dreamer, the third personality or “alter” of the Judeo-Christian God in terms of content of consciousness vicariously experiences and utilizes the content of the mind of the Crucified Man and uses this information according to this snippet of Romans 3:26:

‘…so as to be just (fair), and the one who justifies (understands the position of and makes righteous or free of Crucific perception) those who have faith in Jesus’

…to edit human re-enactment of the previous experience of crucified Christ, transforming most (but not all, through the executive insistence of the God-substance) into safe, uneventful alterations in the narrative of the previous horrors in the mind of Christ. If in the Sacrificial Dream the Crucified Man dreamed of being a person caught in a fatal vehicular accident, in the Christ-replicative re-enactment of that scene the Lucid Dreamer alters the re-enactment, allowing the person to safely circumvent the accident.

Let the wicked fall into their own nets, while I pass by in safety.

-Psalm 141:10

As human experience is the replication of God-experience in one of three personalities and states of consciousness, one of the three personalities of God is always the cause of any human experience. The Lucid Dreamer is the cause of years of falling asleep and waking up safe and sound; the Crucified Man is behind falling asleep and waking up to a murderous intruder. The previous content in the mind of God explains everything; explains every object, concept, and action.


Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the Father of lights, with whom is no variableness, neither shadow of turning.

-James 1:17

The Lucid Dreamer is behind every happy child’s birthday party; every enjoyable and violently uneventful outing; every safe shift at work; every safe journey out of town or to the grocery store.

Expressions of love made in the quiet of night; the unspoken miens of irreplaceable emotional connection, even the miens of the endearing qualities of even the most crude person; the soul of a person in the properties of conscience, empathy, and the capacity to love—the structural components of the Divine Spark—these are creations of the Lucid Dreamer (and indirectly the Supernal). Every positive, every good thing experienced and committed even in the grotesqueries that are the forms of the Lord’s Death are Lucidic Perceptions transmitted by the distal object of the Lucid Dreamer’s Heroic Dream, that alters complete, one-to-one replication of the horrors of the Sacrificial Dream to save Man from exact duplication of its horrors.

The Heroic Dream grants respite and depicts the end of Satan—whose very existence depends upon the Crucified Man in His non-lucid dreaming. Let’s not take Satan for granted: he’s certainly no push-over. Consider the terrifying fact that this being’s power is not a ding an sich, a thing unto itself, but is derived from God, the version of God that is the Crucified Man. This renders Satan so formidable (“I Lucifer, the terrible, the formidable…”) that Satan can only be destroyed by the waking of the Crucified Man.

Lucidic Perception, the percept in the Pantheopsychic version of the Process of Perception of the distal object of the Heroic Dream enables humans (to an extent) to escape exact replication of the nigh-unending torments and helpless corruptions of the Crucified Man in the Sacrificial Dream. Safe outings, a relatively safe life, prevention of catastrophic consequence, the healing of injuries and illnesses, the waking from sleep to another morning of life and undamaged house—these are Lucidic perceptions, gifts from the Lucid Dreamer, alleviator and editor of the horrors of the Crucified Man.

2. THE LUCID DREAMER AND ‘PHYSICAL’ DEATH

Alleviation and prevention of human replication of some or most of the horrific experiences of the Crucified Man is not the only function of the Lucid Dreamer. The absolute conclusion of the rescue of Man from replication of the Hell of Crucifixion is the fact of ‘physical’ death. Death is the Lucid Dreamer’s way of ripping a person entirely from the Crucifixion (the Sacrificial Dream or Hell of Crucifixion) at the point in which the God-substance allows the Lucid Dreamer to tear a person away from their part in the Sacrificial Dream through the ‘goodbye’ of Death.

For anyone who has died has been freed from sin.

-Romans 6:6

Death in the removal of a person from replication of the Sacrificial Dream has the ancillary effect of removal of the dream-character the deceased person replicated from the mind of the Crucified Man. For it may be that without the Lucid Dreamer the Sacrificial Dream may have gone on for eternity, with the person and its suffering repetitively recycled in the mind of the Crucified Man and, in the absence of the Lucid Dreamer, a one-to-one replication of the experiences of an uninhibited form of the Sacrificial Dream by an eternally suffering Christ-Replicant.

Through the cosmically heroic actions of the Lucid Dreamer—the “Grim Reaper” if Pantheopsychic Theology is true—a person that dies not only is ‘freed from sin’, but helps decrease the content of the Sacrificial Dream and as such generates a cosmic cancer that depletes the existence of Satan and moves the Crucified Man that much further toward eventual waking, transmuting the Crucified Man into the final form of the Supernal.

For Christ-Replicatives, Death is transportation and transformation from replication or partial replication of the dreams of the Crucified Man to a state of existence where one is purified, refined, and educated regarding the true nature of reality to evolve into an indestructible version of one’s former Supernic mind and existence. Through the inexorable permutation and evolution of the God-substance, the Crucified Man and Lucid Dreamer must lose the capacity to perceive evil and death, and merge with (thus integrating and removing the Dissociative Personality “Disorder” yielding the three personalities of God) the Supernal to transform into an indestructible and immutable version of the Supernal.

Man in tandem with God must transform into indestructible and immutable versions of the prior Angels of the Supernal, Prodigal sons and daughters returning to their former estate, no longer bound in chains of darkness as the ‘Judgement’ upon which Man awaited (in the positive Man-rather-than-Demon referencing form of Jude 1:6) is the God-substance freeing saved Man from replication of the sufferings of the Crucified Man.

3. THE LUCID DREAMER: JUSTIFIER, EDUCATOR, AND PURIFIER OF THE WICKED

It is not Lucifer that is the ‘light bringer’, the one who wakes to or reveals truth in Pantheopsychic Theology: it is the Lucid Dreamer, who wakes humans from the slumber of erroneous philosophy and belief to see the light of Pantheopsychism, the actual nature of reality.

A function of the Lucid Dreamer is to educate or ‘wake one up’ to the true nature of reality, the one truth out of the teeming masses of illusion and philosophical error. The truth that hides behind everything.

The truth that one is either a glamour of Christ, or an Objective Consciousness.

That’s it.

The delineation, it seems, is possession of the Divine Spark, which carries with it not only the positive forms of conscience and empathy but the negative form of a subconscious, subliminal hatred of evil—evil unambiguously defined as any psychology that violates or experiences pleasure or indifference at violation of the Golden Rule, argued to be the most unambiguous definition of morality fittingly defined by Jesus Christ Himself:

Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.

-Matthew 7:12

Or its modern re-phrasing:

“Do unto others as you would have others do unto you.”

A rather simple task, it seems. In a nutshell, Christ defined morality as nothing more (or less) that saying to oneself: if I would not want someone to say or do “this” to me, then that in itself is a sign that I should not say or do “it” to anyone.

(A psychologist had an interesting point: he states the Golden Rule might need a tweak when it comes to masochists. He states in their case the Golden Rule should amend to: "Do unto others as you would have others do unto you, if you were them.”)

Unfortunately, the Golden Rule is lost to those having the dark tetrad of the Cluster B Personality Disorder, those trapped in Cluster A or C Personality Disorders, and those having powerful fetishistic desire. Even if one physically restrains oneself from treating others in ways one would not wish to be treated if the shoe were on the other foot, there is still the psychological netherworld of the uncontrollable content within the mind, in which alligators swim in the mental dark, appearing in whatever form they will, that rise occasionally to the sunny surface in forms that gleefully and privately violate the Golden Rule.

But anticivilization emotions don’t go away, and they demand periodic exercise. We have such “sick” jokes as, “What’s the difference between a truckload of bowling balls and a truckload of dead babies?” (You can’t unload a truckload of bowling balls with a pitchfork . . . a joke, by the way, which I heard originally from a ten-year-old.)

Such a joke may surprise a laugh or a grin out of us even as we recoil, a possibility which confirms the thesis: if we share a Brotherhood of Man, then we also share an Insanity of Man. None of which is intended as a defense of either the sick joke or insanity, but merely as an explanation of why the best horror films, like the best fairy tales, manage to be reactionary, anarchistic, and revolutionary all at the same time.

My agent, Kirby McCauley, likes to relate a scene from Andy Warhol’s film Bad -—and he relates it in the fond tones of the confirmed horror-movie buff. A mother throws her baby from the window of a skyscraper; we cut away to the crowd below and hear a loud splat. Another mother leads her son through the crowd and up to the mess (which is obviously a watermelon with seeds removed), points to it, and says, to the effect, “That’s what will happen to you if you’re bad!” It’s a sick joke, like the one about the truckload of dead babies —or the one about the babes in the woods, which we call “Hansel and Gretel.”

The mythic horror movie, like the sick joke, has a dirty job to do. It deliberately appeals to all that is worst in us. It is morbidity unchained, our most base instincts let free, our nastiest fantasies realized . . . and it all happens, fittingly enough, in the dark. For these reasons, good liberals often shy away from horror films. For myself, I like to see the most aggressive of them —Dawn of the Dead, for instance—as lifting a trapdoor in the civilized forebrain and throwing a basket of raw meat to the hungry alligators swimming around in that subterranean river beneath.

Why bother? Because it keeps them from getting out, man. It keeps them down there and me up here. It was Lennon and McCartney who said that all you need is love, and I would agree with that…

…as long as you keep the gators fed.

-Stephen King, Danse Macabre

Knowing of the secret mental pits where dwells the mental alligators that secretly violate the Golden Rule, Christ admonishes that when it comes to sin, humans will sin “no matter what”, such that being outwardly sinless does nothing but hide the inner, mental sins that uncontrollably rise (albeit mainly to invisible conscious entertainment and introspection) from the mental dark:

“For it is what is within, that which comes out of a man, is what defiles him. For from within come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, wickedness, deceit, debauchery, envy, slander, arrogance, and foolishness, and the like. All these evils come from within, and are what defile a man.”

-Mark 7:21

And as stated before, these are uncontrollable. Can one know the nature of, much less prevent an evil thought before it appears? These uncontrollable and unpredictable “out of the blue” thoughts and feelings are considered “sin” as they ‘defile a man’ and if one is catching the drift of what Christ is saying, these qualities are innate aspects of human beings and the human condition: they are as much a part of you as the color of one’s eyes or skin.

Nevermind the broadcasts—those relentless news reports from the Devil on your sensory radio in the form of evils in the daily news and in movies and television. Even if one were a perfect psychological saint, an exception to Christ’s statement in Mark 7:21, like Christ himself (otherwise how could He have known the concepts he mentions coming from men’s hearts in Mark 7:21?), one is still doomed by the nature of this world to be informationally evil, i.e to know of the existence of evil and the various actual and possible violations of the Golden Rule.

PANTHEOPSYCHIC PRINCIPLE OF JUSTIFICATION REVISITED

So as to be just
and the one who justifies
those who have faith in Jesus

-Romans 3: 26

According to Fundamentalist Christianity, which feeds the zeitgeist of every period of history after Roman Catholic institution of the concept of eternal damnation in hellfire, sin is a property of the human alone, and the Christian God hates sin to such a degree that any human goodness, if a human is tainted by even a tachyon of what the God considers sin, is waived as merit for Heaven and the person is inevitably doomed to the fires of eternal Hell.

The only way out of this horrific situation is if the human “has faith in Jesus Christ” (faith in the existence of Jesus Christ, His human life and ministry, and the fact of His Crucifixion and later Resurrection). Further, one must have faith that while dying upon the cross, Christ “took upon himself one’s sins”. This Fundamentalist or Arminian form of Justification, when it comes to how Christ “took upon himself the sins of the world” remains conceptually unanswered or vague as there is, regardless of any Fundamentalist concept of how Christ absorbed the sins of the world on the cross, probably no imagination of the Pantheopsychic method of sin-absorption—sin pre-experience.

It is safe to assume that in Fundamentalist Christian thought there is probably no belief that in His mind while dying on the Cross, Jesus lapsed into an eons long dream in which He became each human that ever existed (or every human that can be justified, if Annihilism is true), and experienced each sin of every justified human, the sin in Christ’s case not counted by God (the Lucid Dreamer) as sin qua sin which results in the second death of Hell, but Christ’s suffering of experiencing the state of mind and “sin” of not-yet-existing justified humans. The later-arriving human, according to Pantheopsychic concept of salvation, being fated and unable to do nothing when this human sins but re-enact the previous sufferings (in the form of the sinful mind and behavior of a justified human) of crucified Christ.

To wit:

I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.

-Galatians 2:20

Pantheopsychic Christianity contends this is the only and true method of salvation, and it is done completely outside human effort and will.

As it is written:

However, to the man who does not work
but trusts God who justifies the wicked,
his faith is credited as righteousness.

-Romans 4:5

Does this mean a person has a “license to sin” in which one can deliberately commit any and all evil, and is justified by the Lucid Dreamer simply by having faith in the sacrifice of Jesus Christ or in Christ-Replication? No. A person is justified only in the sense that God elects ‘to be just (fair), and to justify those who have faith in Jesus’ only because those who “sin” and are justified have faith because they can do nothing but helplessly re-enact the “sin” committed and experienced by Jesus in His mind while dying on the cross. There is no deliberateness to it, even if the mental state of deliberation or deliberateness exists in the person. Even the deliberateness itself is a re-enaction.

For whether we live, we live unto the Lord; and whether we die, we die unto the Lord: whether we live therefore, or die, we are the Lord’s.

-Romans 14:8

And the Lucid Dreamer enacts a hatred of evil within Christ-Replicants, alongside a ‘remission of sins’ in which sins abate or lessen over time rather than are joyously entertained. There is an “other mind”, so to speak, a mind of metaphorical Apollo that conflicts with and continually interrups the mind of metaphorical Dionysus. There is not merely Dionysus in the Pantheopsychic Christian in his or her replication of the “sinful” mind of crucified Christ. The mind is made to drift from the content of the Crucifixion in chronic rumination on the Pantheopsychic nature of reality, the Pantheopsychic nature of one’s circumstances, and a trust in God (the Lucid Dreamer) that one shall be healed of the Crucific mind. One has the subliminal hope that re-enactment of the sufferings of Christ shall one day cease, absolute cessation occurring in death, which is never cessation of the existence of consciousness but irreversible transformation of mind from perception of the current plane of existence to perception of non-Crucific reality.


C. HUMAN PERCEPTION IN THE FORM OF SUPERNIC PERCEPTION, THE UNKNOWN FORM OF NON-CRUCIFIC CONSCIOUSNESS

Supernal or Supernic Perception is consciousness devoid of Crucific content (any concept, object, environment, or emotional or bodily experience that deliberately or accidentally causes mental and physical pain). As a consequence of the absence of Crucific and even Lucidic Perception (which while involving scenarios and events in which mental and physical pain is avoided or ameliorated, carries the concept of mental and physical pain in potential, “would-have-been” form), the nature of Supernal Perception is unknown.

If there is a translative relation between pre-Crucific Angels and Crucific Man, it is the transformation of pre-Crucific Angels into Crucifically perceiving beings when the Supernal transformed into the Crucified Man.

Despite the transformation, it may be that Crucific perception is not entirely devoid of Supernic perception, such that Supernic perception in pure form is inconceivable and inexperiential but in replication of the experiences of the Crucified Man there are “tachyons” of Supernic relics within the re-enactment, if only within the “physical” environments experienced by the Crucified Man. If there is trace Supernic content within the Sacrificial Dream itself, these, given the translational morality of God in any of His three forms, appear in the form of the indigenous mind of Christ Himself that momentarily arises within the Sacrificial Dream and any object, environment, or moment within the Sacrificial Dream that is devoid of and does not involve the experience of pain (though everything within the Sacrificial Dream does not prevent and is a prelude to the inevitable appearance of pain).

This is, of course, assuming that within the Crucified Man there are only bodies performing the immediate performances of predatory/prey in nigh-infinite scenarios of deliberate and accidental causation of mental and physical pain alongside philosophical error and illusion in a surrounding black void (or blue or red void, etc.) independent of trace Supernal beauty. It is more intuitive, however, that even within the Hell of Crucifixion itself flowers nevertheless bloom, with Supernic traces existing only in the form of beautiful, natural environments in the background of Christ’s horrific dream: i.e. the gruesome murder of a family occurring under a glistening blue sky on a perfect fall day—Christ experiencing each victim in turn.


SUPERNIC PERCEPTION IN LUCIDIC PERCEPTION

I’ll not descend to the romantic oversimplification that suggests we see things more clearly as children, but I will suggest that children see more intensely. The greens of lawns are, to the child’s eye, the color of lost emeralds in H. Rider Haggard’s conception of King Solomon’s Mines, the blue of the winter sky is as sharp as an icepick, the white of new snow is a dream-blast of energy. And black…is blacker. Much blacker indeed.

-Stephen King, Danse Macabre

Within the “here and now” that is an amalgamation of Man’s replication of the content of consciousness of the Crucified Man and the Lucid Dreamer, there may be replication of the content of the Supernal in “bits and pieces” in the form of the beauty of nature, the beauty of certain objects (particularly objects observed in childhood from a child’s perspective), and human love and conscience. These are inner experiences independent of simple environmental beauty that are translations of unknowable Supernic existence transcribed by the Lucid Dreamer in the crude forms of the actors in the Hell of Crucifixion. The original horrors in the mind of crucified Christ are altered by the Lucid Dreamer to prevent “identical twin” human replication of those horrors, replacing the horrors in human partial replication of the experiences of the Crucified Man into positive “edits” of love, kindness, and aesthetic wonder in places where upset and terror “should” have existed in exact Crucific replication.

CRUCIFIC BEINGS AND THE TRANSLATIONAL NATURE OF THE DIVINE SPARK

If Crucific environmental and objective perception contains aspects of the Supernal or Supernic perception, in terms of the beauty of nature and objects, the most glaring relic of the Supernal in the Lucid Dreamer’s alteration of Crucific replication is the appearance of the Divine Spark: human goodness that is an inferior form of the goodness of Pre-Crucific existence. The Divine Spark is the goodness of God crudely exemplified in human form, crudely exemplified in grotesqueries of pre-Crucific Angels. Lemons turned to lemonade by the Lucid Dreamer in the form of characters that as they were in the mind of the Crucified Man knew only pain and horror, but by the heroic editing of the Lucid Dreamer bear as best they can a semblance of previous Supernic existence in the form of human love, conscience, empathy, and aesthetic wonder.

Righteous indignation, meanwhile, is a psychological character that had no reason to exist in the Supernic Before, and while a positive psychological virtue, is exclusively an expression in humans of the Crucifixion-reactive mind of the Lucid Dreamer.


CONCLUSION: THE RIDICULOUS SIMPLICITY OF PANTHEOPSYCHISM

If we are, as Paul states in Acts 17:28 God’s offspring, one is the offspring of God in terms of being composed of His substance and in the replication of his prior thoughts and experiences: there does not objectively exist the Fundamentalist and non-Christian belief that God and Man are psychologically separate and unrelated. Rather, in darkness and light (save for the darkness not experienced firsthand by the Crucified Man) we are bound to God in shared experience of life and spiritual death (the true nature of spiritual death being Christ’s suffering of our spiritual death), as the experience of Death, spiritual death, is for those that replicate Christ the sharing of the experience of the non-lucidly dreaming form of God in the Sacrificial Dream.

Underlying and providing the eternal and infinite backdrop of ‘everything’ in a Pantheopsychic ‘Theory of Everything’ is the only substance that actually demonstrates it exists: first-person subjective experience. It is the only substance we need to structure and explain reality, as conception, belief, and of course faith in the existence of that which is not subjective experience forces one to take the not so logical position of using one’s subjective experience to “depict” that which is not subjective experience. Precisely because it does not demonstrate it exists in the way of subjective experience, that which is not/is other than subjective experience cannot rationally factor into any reasonable explanation of the nature of existence.

We can further simplify a TOE by removing imagination or proposition of any form of subjective experience that does not appear in the form of a whole, holistic person or mind. This removes Atomism or any inconceivable process utilizing any fictional form of consciousness other than the form in which consciousness actually appears: the form of a person experiencing seven types of consciousness (barring sensory and mental handicap). The simplest Model of Existence, the simplest TOE, then is any proposition of the nature of the external world in which the only things that exist, the only things that have ever existed, are whole persons and their experiences, with no collocation from micro-objects in the origin of such persons.

Add to this an existential determinism in which that which exists (which only exists in the forms of persons and their experiences) is the only thing that could have existed. That which exists is the only state of affairs that could exist for no other reason than it is the only forms the subjective experience that is the only substance that exists can assume. Even imagination of what could or might have existed in the place of actual things is just another “just so” and “can only be so” permutation of the only substance in existence.

From this simplest imagination of Existence, in which like Sauron in the teeth of Huan consciousness in seven (or less if one is sensorially and/or mentally handicapped) forms does nothing but shifts shape from ‘wolf, to serpent, to monster, to own accustomed form’—one can imagine according to one’s heartfelt suspicion or conviction an external world of Godless Panpsychism or Godless Idealism, in which only persons exist that in death do not cease to exist but transform into other persons or aspects of another’s experience.

Godless Panpsychism would entail only the existence of a population of persons occupying the external world (perhaps the number of such persons in a Planar Model of Godless Existence, for example, takes up every interstitial point in infinity, displacing and not allowing the existence of Nothing), interacting with others through coincidental relativity of sychronized experience, without person-consciousness being created or controlled by an external individual or individuals having the “just so” power to imagine, then grant, content of consciousness of dependent/subordinate others.

If, however, based on one’s upbringing mixed with honest philosophical admission that the forthcoming is not obviously false and is despite the naysaying a reasonable metaphysical and logical possibility, one finds oneself convinced or extremely suspicious that there indeed exists gods or a God. In the foreground of Panpsychism in the form of a “only persons exist” “Pan-Person-Psychism”, one enters the realm of the outright possibility of Pantheopsychism, a merging of Theism and Panpsychism in which, if one adheres to Judeo-Christian theology, there is a monotheistic God that possesses the “just so” power of having the ultimate responsibility of first experiencing, then passing on to others the content of consciousness of every being, as every other being depends for the content of their consciousness upon the previous experiences of this content-of-consciousness-providing God.

A Panpsychic Judeo-Christianity is Pantheopsychic Christianity, in which Man is inextricably linked to God and the current form of Man partially replicates the nightmares of God in the personage of the Crucified Man, the fate of Man determined by the “just so” content within the mind of the Crucified God and his lucidly dreaming Rescuer. Man will and must continue to assume the shapes previously assumed by God until the mind of God shifts with the wakening of the Crucified Man into the final Shape, the return of the First personality of God in immutable and indestructible form in a final, eternal permutation of the only substance that exists: first-person subjective experience.

THE COMPLETE, UTTER END OF PANTHEOPSYCHIC THEORY, PHILOSOPHY, AND METAPHYSICS (SAVE THAT WHICH MUST APPEAR IN THE FINAL PAPER)

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.”

PG

I’m having a hard time realizing what you are writing here.
It seems almost twisted or distorted to me.
But I don’t want to offend you.

No problem.

In a nutshell, Pantheopsychic theory and theism states:

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. (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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. The Lucid Dreamer, the third personality, intermittently appears and takes the place of the Crucified Man in the infinity of the external world.

  4. 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.

  5. 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.

  6. 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.

PG

When you watch a movie, sometimes they make a character who doesn’t know what the audience knows.

If the audience WERE that character, they wouldn’t know it either.

You cannot be a being who knows and doesn’t know something in general or at the same time.

Thus: your god cannot exist.

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.

No, it doesn’t work that way.

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.

Almost forgot: given a particular context.

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.

PG

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.

PG

You can’t experience things billions of years before it happens … because it already happened if that’s true.

All you have is the now. I don’t know neurology.

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.

PG

Again:

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.

Theoretically anyway.

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.)

PG

Phenomenal graffiti…

You don’t use basic logic.

If a being lived my exact life billions of years ago, that means my exact life was lived billions of years ago.

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.

PG

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.

Nope, not interested.

Though, apparently, Ecmandu is. :sunglasses:

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.

PG