The theist believes: ‘This isn’t THAT’
The pantheist believes: ‘This is THAT’
The pantheist’s notion of how life operates is pretty simple. Whereas the theist believes that God is somewhere out there and from where he regulates (and so) creates us, the pantheist believes that God operates as ‘built in’ self-regulation procedure.
In short, the pantheist believes that God is distributed in/as all life forms. Which means that each and every emergent in the universe operates in equal measure as God albeit constrained by and so adapted to its niche (or eco-system).
Thus does each and every identifiable reality emerge as limited application of God (as emergence procedure).
© 2020 by Victor Langheld
Meet Tiffany, the dung beetle,
And Tiffano, the ball of shite.
The name Tiffany is long for theophany,
meaning: manifestation of GOD
God as (every) dung beetle
God as dung
God as each and every dung bacterium
God as every chemical element of dung
God as every atom
God as every sub-atomic particle
God as every Planck constant h
Idem all nn (i.e. n to the power of n) alternate theophanies.
The pantheist’s notion1 of how life2 operates is pretty simple. Whereas the theist believes that God3 is somewhere out there from where he regulates (and so) creates us,4 the pantheist believes that God operates as ‘built in’ self-regulation5 procedure6.
In short, the pantheist believes that God is built in rather than apart,7 hence distributed in/as all life forms.8 Which means that each and every emergent in the universe9 operates in equal measure as God10,11 albeit constrained by12 and so adapted to its niche13 (or eco-system).
Thus does each and every identifiable reality emerge as limited application14,15 of God (as emergence procedure).
© 2020 by Victor Langheld
1. The notion (i.e. as inference) that all emergents (i.e. dynamic life forms = nature) operate as distributed network rather than ‘on-line’ to one (i.e. mono) specific regulatory source tends to emerge in a rare few individuals (or sub-cultures) not primarily concerned with personal survival. The (monist) pantheist believes that all identifiable realities in the universe are variations of one emergence procedure and which operates automatic (i.e. are self-regulating). The (dualist) theist believes that all identifiable realities (i.e. every ‘this’) in the universe are generated by an ‘other’, hence are heteromatic (i.e. regulated by THAT ‘other’).
2. There is no such reality as LIFE, i.e. of life-as-such. Only individual lives, i.e. dynamic life quanta, emerge. The notion of LIFE (as-such) is a universal. Universals emerge as false (i.e. as unreal and unidentifiable) but abstractions, useful because they speed up responses.
3. The theistic notion of God (i.e. as apart from, i.e. external to, identifiable reality/nature, thus as supernatural) is a false universal. Only individual gods, i.e. constrained and limited (thus discrete) actual applications of the GOD procedure, emerge. Hence ‘No GOD but gods.’ Idem ‘No LIFE but lives’, ‘No REALITY but realities,’ ‘No BEING but realness moments.’
4. Thus making us dependent on external regulation, like children (more specifically, like Darwin’s ‘unfit.’ Hence the immense value of theism as hierarchical, autocratic (cultural) Guide & Control System and exploitation means. Keeping humans infantile (i.e. dependent and incomplete, thus subject to imprinting and enslavement) is good for the personal survival of priests and politicians. Pantheism gives all emergents regulatory equality (hence completeness and so independence) and which is why it is so opposed to, i.e. inimical to theism.
5. For ‘regulation’ read: constraint (i.e. stop, block and so on). A constraint repeated is ‘experienced’ (i.e. processed, responded to) as order. The (quantised) response to a (discrete) constraint is experienced as moment of realness, to a series of constrains as identity.
6. For ‘procedure’ (that enables and so emerges a specific outcome (i.e. instruction = outcome = message = meaning) substitute the word (and notion of) algorithm. In short, God operates as regulation (=creation) algorithm whose outcome emerges as the or every) actual world, i.e. nature.
7. Which means that each and every emerged identifiable reality is self-regulating rather than externally regulated, and because quantised (i.e. unitised) complete. Which in turn means that in the biological world all cells and cell clusters, like the human and who has approx. 5 trillion cells, are self-regulating and so self-adapting, hence evolving.
8. Distribution, both horizontally and vertically, is recursive. In other words, each and every emergent ‘runs on’, because enabled by, the basic emergence procedure (to wit, Spinoza’s substance) usefully named GOD. In other words, each emergent happens as a basic emergence procedure adaptation, i.e. not as different but as variation.
9. In other words, the gods as limited procedure outcomes
10. For ‘God’ understand: an (any) (repeating) unlimited constraints (of energy as constrained random momentum) series that emerges (i.e. impacts or instructs) an identifiable realness moment. Note that neither realness (Sanskrit: sat) nor identity (Sanskrit: chit) are ongoing as the ancients believed but quantised, i.e. discrete. Only as quanta (i.e. units = discrete wholes) can they be responded to.
11. As some ancient Indians of 2500 years ago finely observed, the God procedure itself (i.e. as BASIC OPERATING SYSTEM (or architecture) of all emerged identifiable realness moments) displays no identifiable and experiential shape (or quality). They named that unidentifiable procedure (nirguna) Brahman. Each and every application of that procedure they named (saguna) Brahman. Eventually the Hindus claimed that the basic procedure, i.e. the Brahman (as substance or essence of creation) and the applied procedure, i.e. the Atman were identical, and which (i.e. ‘This = THAT’, i.e. iti, iti rather than neti, neti) is the pantheist’s monist view in a nutshell.
12. i.e. constrained as. What is constrained is energy (i.e. random momentum). Lives, i.e. identifiable realities, emerge in two basic forms/phases. Initially they emerge as once off constraints, that is to say, as ‘one-way’ energy (i.e. thermo-dynamic) packets (such as the chemical hadrons) = batteries interacting that degrade towards maximum entropy. With increasing complexity of constraints they evolve as self-recharging, self-reproducing and self-upgrading (to increased negentropy) constraints (systems), i.e. as in rechargeable batteries variously shaped. All rechargeable batteries-as-constraints systems (i.e. as complex life forms, such as the human) are predatory.
13. A niche (or eco-system, as web of constraints strings or webs) consists of (i.e. exists as) a limited GOD procedure application, namely as a god. All gods emerges as identical but differentiated versions of GOD.
14. Therefore fully independent and complete, like an adult. By and large, mature independent adults, of which there are few, and those but briefly, take the pantheist view. Immature (and not yet responsible because incomplete) children seek comfort, consolation and safety in the theist view (of external regulation and protection).
15. A local application’s (i.e. a life’s) primary task is to survive. Its actual shape/identity defines its pathway of adaptations to survival.