The crux of pantheism
Nature, the whole universe, is god (in action). The pantheist understands the word God as the acronym G.O.D, short for General Ordering Device, and defines the device as basic (or universal) set of creation rules. She believes that this universe is grounded in one basic (i.e. universal) set of rules, good for all emergents. But that each emergent, as henotheist, operates its own ‘one set of rules’ selected and then elaborated from but grounded in the basic (≈ universal ≈ open source) rules set.
The pantheist chooses to believe that her (therefore THE) whole universe, that is to say, all real identifiable appearances therein, both animate and non-animate, emerge as limited applications of one self-regulating, self-adapting and therefore self-creating template of rules, that is to say, of G.O.D.
In short, if the one basic ≈ universal set of creation rules is named the SELF (i.e. Pantheos), then the locally adapted one set of local creation rules (also automatic and self-regulating) is aptly named selfie (i.e. Henotheos, because closed source but also automatic and self-regulating).
The Split Man
The sculpture represents an individual in painful limbo between other- and self-regulation. He has yet to invent his niche as defined by his own selected set of rules and by so doing become a g.o.d. in his own right. He is, therefore, depicted without a penis, i.e. without creative thrust.
Consequently pantheist belief (and experience) tends to emerge in individuals seeking the freedom to fully self-regulate with their own set of rules and by so doing becoming fully compliant with the universal creation rules set, thereby demonstrating their g.o.d.-liness. And they do this by wilfully and imaginatively extending or altering the rules set-as-niche within which, meaning as which they operate and which emerge them as particular, thus differential quanta of identifiable realness.
So the transition from henotheism, i.e. the belief in ‘my one rules set’, to pantheism, the belief in ‘one rules set for all’, merely reflects the transition (indeed reversion) from limited self-regulation to unlimited self-regulation.
But can there be true self-regulation? Well No! After all, each individual-as-one-selected-rules-set is as it were embedded in an ever changing because self-reordering concentrate (or ocean) of other individuals-as-one-selected-rules-sets, all operating as alternately limited self-regulating applications of the non-selective G.O.D. rules set. Indeed, each self-regulating individual is wholly dependent on the surround of other self-regulating individuals in order to make contact and thereby become real and identifiable and so fully compliant with the basic G.O.D. rules.
And the G.O.D. rules serve to eliminate their own incompleteness, namely their lack of realness and identity and so create completeness. Likewise do the g.o.d. rules, operating as differential-niche-applications of G.O.D., hence as G.O.D.’s selfies, serve to emerge/create (i.e. bootstrap) their own completeness, namely their own realness and identity.
© 2018 by Victor Langheld
The crux of pantheism
Nature,1 the whole universe,2 is GOD3 (in action).4 The pantheist understands the word God as the acronym G.O.D,5 short for General Ordering Device,6 and defines the device as basic (≈ universal) set of creation rules.7 She believes that this universe is grounded in one basic (i.e. universal) set of rules, good for all emergents.8 But that each emergent, as henotheist,9 operates its own ‘one set of rules’ selected and then elaborated10 from but grounded in the basic (≈ universal11 ≈ open source) rules set.
The pantheist chooses to believe12 that her (therefore THE) whole universe, that is to say, all real identifiable appearances13 therein, both animate and non-animate, emerge as limited applications of one14 self-copying, self-regulating, self-adapting and therefore continuously self-creating15 template of rules, that is to say, of G.O.D.
In short, if the one basic ≈ universal set of creation rules is named the SELF16,17 (i.e. Pantheos18), then the locally adapted one set of local creation rules (also automatic and self-regulating) is aptly named selfie (i.e. Henotheos).19
Consequently pantheist belief (and experience) tends to emerge in individuals seeking the freedom to fully self-regulate with their own set of rules20 and by so doing fully act out the universal creation rules set, thereby demonstrating their g.o.d.-liness. And this they do by wilfully and imaginatively extending21 or altering the rules set-as-niche within which, meaning as which they operate and which emerge them as particular, thus differential quanta of identifiable realness.
So the transition from henotheism,22 believing in and dependent on ‘my one rules set’, to pantheism, as ‘one rules set for all’, merely reflects the transition from limited self-regulation to unlimited self-regulation.23,24
But can there be true25 self-regulation?26 Well No! After all, each individual-as-one-selected-rules-set27 is as it were embedded in an ever changing because self-reordering28 concentrate (or ocean) of other individuals-as-one-selected-rules-sets, all operating as alternately limited self-regulating applications of the non-selective G.O.D. rules set.29 Indeed, each self-regulating individual is wholly dependent on the surround of other self-regulating individuals30 in order to make contact31 and thereby become real, identifiable and upgraded to continued survival,32 thus complete and so fully compliant with the basic (incomplete) G.O.D. rules.
So the G.O.D. (i.e. Pan) rules as basic creation operating system serve to eliminate their own incompleteness, namely their lack of realness, identity and actual continuity33 and so emerge their own completeness. Likewise do (henotheist) g.o.d. rules templates, operating as differential-niche-applications of the G.O.D. template, hence as G.O.D.’s selfies, serve to emerge/create (i.e. bootstrap) their own completeness, namely their own realness, identity and indefinite continuity.
© 2018 by Victor Langheld
1. For ‘nature’ read: whatever is born, that is to say, whatever emerges as identifiable reality, therefore as a transmittable, meaning transactional message/signal. The ancient Indians called a transaction karma. All karmic transaction, i.e. namely the application and so transmission (i.e. rebirth) of differential rules, is violent.
2. For ‘universe’ (≈ one turn) read: cosmos, world, one whole reality take (or response) and so on.
3. GOD writ large is conceived as basic or ground ordering (or self-organisation) system of constraints ≈ rules, regulations, laws and so on. God writ small, more precisely described as godie (adapted from the (Upanishad) notion of the (formless) SELF (to wit, Atman) and the selfie as its formal (or niche) application).
4. For ‘in action’ read: instructing, striking, contacting (like the Morse Code), transacting to generate more complex messages (i.e. serial instructions transmuted into forms ≈ icons), of SELF via selfie-transmitting and of SELF via selfie receiving. The selfie emerges as quantised SELF. It follows that the notion (as interpretation) of ‘being’ ( Latin: esse) emerges as false (slower) observer superimposition that happens if and when a slower processing message receiver attempts to respond to a faster processing message (i.e. instructions) transmitter. So it is, as others have observed down the centuries, that all universes happen as processes and that both G.O.D. (i.e. SELF) and ITS myriad godies (i.e. selfies) happen as discretely discontinuous processes. Hence, both G.O.D. and ITS goodies are best conceived as verbs, not as nouns. However, by quantising (i.e. halting or slicing) the ongoing processes into hardware things (i.e. message or signal units) they become capable of 1 : 1 transaction, thus of being grasped as real, identifiable units.
5. No theistic, meaning henotheistic, belief system has yet produced a cogent, wholly compelling and for the human (as selected and selective super-rules-niche) acceptable definition of GOD though each system/niche defines GOD (i.e. the Ruler or rules template) to suit its survival needs.
6. The play on the English Language acronym G.O.D. as General Ordering Device does not translate into other languages. In the ancient Upanishads several names for G.O.D. were invented at different human development stages, namely Prajapati (conceived as the father of creation), Atman (conceived as the animating breath) and Brahman (conceived as growth that which grows, creates, makes and so on).
7. For ‘set of rules’ read: a limited template (or platform) of rules hence, an algorithm or fractal. For rules read: constraints or limitations. In the given (and every emerging) cosmos (or universe) the rules set is wholly recursive and unlimited (Sanskrit: ananta) in application.
8. For ‘emergent’ read: a real, identifiable universe (or world) and which self-emerges (i.e. self-recreates) continually and differentially (to random) as a self-transmitting messages (as instructions) pack, that is to say, as varying iconised self-conversation overheard by others. At critical communication complexity and so survival efficiency a universe ‘emerges’, that is to say, bootstraps the self-regulation super capability of self-consciousness, to wit of self-monitoring of its multiple systems statuses-as-responses.
9. That is to say, the henotheist as godie (≈ selfie), hence as one self-selected and so ‘other’ de-selective rules template, hence as transient niche (as specific message) operation. Hence for ‘god’ read: external or internal law maker (hence niche creator) and enforcer.
10. For ‘elaborated’ read: differentiated. An emergent (i.e. a ‘godie’ ≈ selfie) must continually self-differentiate (or find different receivers) if it wants to make contact, i.e. transact, and so transmit and receive messages. For, ‘Only difference makes a real difference.’
11. For ‘universal’ here read: open source, i.e. undifferentiated.
12. Because it makes her feel better, if not deliriously ecstatic, because she has resolved her problem (of incompleteness) by inventing, i.e. fantasizing a true means to true self-completion, thereby being compliant with the basic G.O.D. rules. Obviously her fantasy, i.e. her perfect, therefore beautiful world may turn out (like mine) to be either false or irrelevant. But then the trip to final completion and joy was joyful indeed. She self-rewarded with joy for trying successfully, though the content of her completed emergent may have been deselected from further transaction.
13. For ‘appearances’ read: iconised, made real (i.e. functioning as hardware) and easily identifiable digitised messages (i.e. signals) streams that actually contact (or instruct) at transmission rates far beyond the immediate response capacity (such as conscious processing) of the receiver (as observer). Appearances (i.e. this and all worlds) actually function as user friendly (i.e. useful because in analogue and slowed down for normal processing) simulations of user unfriendly (i.e. useless because digitised and unmanageably big) data streams.
14. For ‘one’ read: mono, meaning singular, that which is alone, without a second (≈ Brahman), a monad. The singular (or singularity as independent quantum, like, for instance, mathematics, so Goedel) ‘waits’ incomplete because unproven (and unprovable). (The one) G.O.D. (the principle as singularity) is unprovable (i.e. non-existent) until proven by contact with a ‘second’, i.e. by practice. Practice (i.e. the universe as applied principle ≈ a basic operating system or ordering rules) happens as transaction between niche applications (i.e. selfies) of the (or a) universal principle (i.e. SELF). Hence practice, happening as it does as merely differential (or niche) iteration of universal principle is identical with principle. Such is pantheist (i.e. All-is-G.O.D.) belief.
15. For ‘self-creating’ understand: bootstrapping to differential emergence.
16. In the ancient Upanishads both the Atman (as life giving breath) and the Brahman, as principle of growth ≈ creation, are referred to with the reflexive pronoun SELF (writ large), and which, since self operates as reflexive pronoun, that both are autonomous (i.e. self-driving), hence automatons.
17. The word ‘self’ functions as reflexive pronoun for an ongoing singularity or mono-system, simple or complex. A selfie emerges as a momentary (i.e. digitised, hence quantised) application of a self (a\s ongoing big data stream), elsewhere described as ‘karmic residue.’ The notion of (reflexive) ‘self’ suggests open source, automatic and self-regulating operation. In short, a ‘self’ (indeed ‘selfie’) functions as automaton, as does the SELF (i.e. as G.O.D.) from which the selfie emerged as differential iteration.
18. Pan-theos ≈ ‘All is (i.e. All ONES are)(One) G.O.D.’ means: All emerge as differential self-iterations (i.e. as local applications) of the universal open source code (of rules generating emergence of identifiable realities).
19. Heno-theos ≈ ‘This ONE (selection of rules) is my (one) god’ means: A differential self-iteration (i.e. application) of a closed (i.e. specifically limited) source code (of rules).
20. The notion of pantheism tends to emerge in laid back, fully matured, highly sensitive individuals no longer requiring external guidance and survival help, for instance in post-menopausal or post midlife crisis (somewhat resigned) individuals of private (survival) means, like, for instance, the Greek philosopher Heraclitus, the Chinese mystic Lao-Tzu, the Christian mystic Meister Eckhart and the ancient Hindu cow-herders/warriors whose philosophic speculations were handed down as the Upanishads.
21. In this regard see Schopenhauer’s book: ‘Die Welt als Wille und Vorstellung’ and which attempts to rework and update some of the basic and crucial notions of the Upanishads.
22. Heno-theism (Greek heno meaning = one (specifically my one) God), meaning one selected external or transcendent regulation/constraints system/set (i.e. g.o.d operating as mon-arch). Down the millennia humans have invented hundreds of theisms, all designed to facilitate the socialising or domestication process needed for individual and group survival. So, for instance, the Traffic Code (to wit, rules-as-commandments) initially created/evolved bottom-up by humans and enforced top-down by priests/policewomen to protect drivers from the unpleasant effects of their own stupidity becomes the transcendent g.o.d. (as closed/limited (but evolvable) source code of rules) of motorists. The Traffic Code G.O.D. rewards the good gals, i.e. those who adhere to (i.e. transact perfectly, thereby creating good karma) the rules, with free-flow hence survival upgrade, and punishes the bad gals, i.e. those who break or ignore the rule (thereby generating bad karma), first with fines and/or imprisonment and eventually with the loss of the driving licence (hence excommunication, in raw nature (and/or Christianity) meaning death).
23. Actually the transition is from ‘one set of more limited self-regulation’ (i.e. as monarchy) to ‘one set of less limited or unlimited self-regulation’ (also as monarchy). In short, the transition, in fact reversion is from dependence upon a particular rules template/dispensation (i.e. a monarchy) to independence from one and all particular rules dispensations (thus to local anarchy) albeit as reversion to the universal (single) rules dispensation. By reverting to the universal G.O.D. rules the pantheist, as independent selfie (or g.o.d.ie), hence as monarch in her own right, achieves the full reward for creative effort, i.e. for enhancing creation, but also carries the heavy burden of and responsibility for creation, i.e. for the state of the world and its continued self-dfferentiation. Only the mature, i.e. the fully competent because complete, are prepared to take on this challenge. The specific limitations (i.e. rules) that define G.O.D. as General Ordering Device are not yet known save that they appear to be activated upon the emergence of disorder, i.e. of turbulence, such as in the wake of the Big Bang or any bang (i.e. disturbance ≈ disorder).
24. Both henotheism and pantheism operate one (i.e. mono) rule, or the rule of One, i.e. both are monotheisms or rules monopoles ≈ monarchies, the first local, the second non-local, i.e. universal. As such both have the capacity to generated identifiable realities (i.e. useable because capable of transaction hardware), but both suffer incompleteness and so suffer decay unless continually upgraded by means of differential (indeed random) contact/instruction and energy transaction. In the Buddhist context, the arahant (or saint?) was defined as one who had gained ‘freedom in the (local) dispensation (as local rules template),’ i.e. the freedom of the perfect slave. A Buddha, however, is someone who has freed himself from (local) dispensation and has reverted to, and so applies, the universal rules template-as-(undifferentiated) dispensation. Being ‘dependent’, i.e. attached to impermanent and conditional locality, was the Buddha’s gripe. He believed that dependent origination, to wit; the dependent interplay of the 5 aggregates, was the cause of dukkha (meaning unpleasantness, suffering and so on). He got that one badly wrong. Dukkha emerges as Guide & Control signal that warns of unpleasant affects of non-compliance with the given rules template.
25. For ‘true’ read: complete, whole, @1, @100%, @ zero entropy, quantised, thus capable of becoming real and identifiable.
26. The self-regulation (or regulation by the SELF) problem was central to the speculations of the Upanishads with their notion of the atman, derived either from the reflexive pronoun atta (meaning self) or from the notion of the universal ‘breath of life.’ It was also key to the Buddha’s (alleged) speculation concerning his notion of anatman or anatta (meaning: no self). The Buddha claimed that all formations (i.e. selfies as conditional, impermanent aggregates) experience discomfort or even anguish (dukkha) because they ‘are’ anatta, to wit, not-self. His claim was not just false. It was essentially irrelevant. Possibly the Hinayana notion of anatta was introduced after the Buddha’s death as defence against the encroachments of the more popular, because more comforting Upanishad pitch about the Atman.
27. That is to say, as godie ≈ selfie as locally ≈ niche emerged G.O.D. ≈ SELF fractal ≈ rules template elaboration. The non-local universe (as basic ordering rules set) and its myriad local self-applications are self-activating, hence self-emerging (i.e. self-driven, like a self-drive car), therefore automatons.
28. Re-ordering happens as momentary (i.e. digital) re-setting. In order to reset, the process of ordering needs to be quantised/stilled (i.e. like one frame of a movie).
29. Since the G.O.D. rules are non-selective (i.e. content free), i.e. in that all ITS copies are, prior to differential application, identical with each other and with Itself, St Augustine’s fantasy about grace (i.e. as arbitrary divine intervention) as means to salvation is eliminated as means to salvation.
30. Each selfie is surrounded by alternate selfies and activated, thus emerged as identifiable reality, only by random (or at least differential) contact/collision and ‘quality’ (i.e. karmic residue) transaction.
31. For ‘contact’ read: one to one transaction. In ancient India transaction, i.e. copulation between 2 units-as-‘this’ variations of ‘that’, i.e. operating as differential ‘that’ applications (to wit: ‘Thou art that’) and resulting in the transmission of ‘quality’ and therefore new life (i.e. rebirth) was called karma.
32. i.e. given ‘life support’ read: nourishment, meaning: disorder to be upgraded into self-sustaining (i.e. continuing) and self-enhancing order.
33. In other words, G.O.D. ‘waits’ (omnipresent) as virtual (creation) rules set/template. That virtual rules set/template becomes actual as response to the emergence of turbulence/disorder/increased entropy (i.e. the affect of a big or small bang) and which it does by ordering the turbulence as local (i.e. niche ≈ super rules) rules templates and whose after-effects emerge as real, identifiable quanta capable of actual communication ≈ transaction ≈ karma.