Eco vs. pan
For eco1,2,3 (short for ecological system) read: a limitation ≈ constraint (as rule); meaning a decided environment/locality (as random event) emerging4 as affect5 from a limited rule-as-constraints template/set.6
For pan (derived from the ancient Greek ‘to pan’, meaning all) read: ALL (ecos), specifically the basic (or common) eco from which all local (hence more limited, thus super-) ecos emerge as the former’s self-applications.7
The ecotheist believes in and so worships8 the one rules/constraints9 set that shapes her10 (as local environment). She acts as henotheist, meaning that she believes in and worships/serves one God11 only, namely the one (secondary rules set) from/via which she emerges. Consequently she he believes that all other ecos are fundamentally ‘other’12, hence to be freely subjugated and predated.13
The pantheist believes, indeed worships the one common, hence initial rules set14 that makes the emergence of all ecos possible. And she believes that all ecos emerge as alternative applications of the one common rules set. Hence, in order to stay compliant, i.e. to execute the initial rules set perfectly, the pantheist too subjugates and predates those alternate ecos that serve to complete her own basic ordering template.15
The ecotheist believes that the one rules set from which she emerges, namely her God, is complete, whole and perfect and that she, as eco, as local app, is incomplete, un-whole and imperfect.16
The pantheist believes that the common rules set from which all ecos emerge, namely God as basic (or initial) rules template, is incomplete, un-whole and imperfect17 and that it’s the eco’s job to make the common rules template (i.e. G.O.D.) complete, whole and perfect, in a word, good.18
© 2018 by Victor Langheld
1. The word ‘eco’ is derived from the ancient Greek word oikos, meaning ‘house’.
2. Re-read ‘eco vs. pan’ as: ‘1 vs. all (1’s).
3. In the 20th century the Greek word/notion oikos has been evolved to include such notions as ‘home’, ‘environment’, ‘niche’, set, ‘locality’, ‘organism’ (as living niche) and so on.
4. Emergence happens as side-effect of the creation of more complex structure/limitation. It appears on-going though it actually happens as discretely discontinuous because quantised. And because quantised emergence, i.e. the transmission of greater complexity, can be stopped, halted, sliced and so turned into identifiable realness, i.e. hardware.
5. For ‘affect’ read: a quantum of instruction propagating (i.e. having momentum) as a differential (i.e. random) event. Each eco (i.e. as limitation/constraints set) transmits its whole output, hence its end state as (potential) instruction pack. Its true transmission is decided as the receiver’s response.
6. Limitation, that is to say, constraint, results in, i.e. emerges as, cognisable, i.e. identifiable realness, albeit only to alternate, thus related or relative limitations.
7. The basic or primary eco, i.e. the initial ordering procedure (called G.O.D.) serves as basic or ground operating system. All apps, as secondary ordering procedures, emerge as super (i.e. above the ground) ordering systems. Hence a localising app, i.e. a niche eco as re-folded basic eco, serves as super- and not as a sub-system.
8. For ‘worships’ substitute: serves, applies (differentially refolds) herself and so on.
9. Constraints, the means to (i.e. as grid components of) ordering, are experienced, i.e. responded to as forces. Constraints force an event with momentum into a limited channel, hence into order. The constraining action is experienced as force though the force is actually the momentum (≈ energy) of that which is constrained.
10. For ‘shapes her’ read: that forces her into a constraints/rules grid, the grid (as rules set) providing her (with) identity, the forcing action making her real.
11. For ‘God’ read: the abstract name (as verbal icon) or persona (i.e. as personal reference) superimposed on the common or a local or rules/constraints set. In short, God stands for (local or common ≈ universal) ‘ordering device-as-rules-template’.
12. i.e. opposite.
13. Predation was explicitly ‘commanded’ in Genesis 1-26 of the Jewish Torah. Hence predation became a wholly legitimate because God commanded right and pursuit of the Jews. And since they believed themselves to be special humans because specially chosen they (more specifically the fanatics amongst them) extended predation to all life forms other than Jews. Christians and Muslims, and who operated as hybrid Jews, also used the biblical ‘command’ to predate ‘the other.’
14. Because she happens as local, hence secondary application (i.e. re-folding) of the initial, yet unapplied rules set, she can only infer the primary (or ground) ordering set, named as G.O.D.
15. The pantheist-as-eco predates of necessity (i.e. not by command), reluctantly and with sorrow. Sorrow (compassion and so on) emerges only with increased complexity and the reduction of survival threat.
16. At least that is what she is initially led to believe by her priest and later misunderstands due to the competitive realities of everyday life and her own decay and death.
17. It is incomplete, hence un-whole and imperfect, because ONE, i.e. because a monopole or singularity, hence ‘alone’, ‘without a second’ (that reality tests).
18. Unproved, hence unreal and unidentifiable, the initial and initiating G.O.D. (as general or common ordering device, elsewhere named the SELF) proves itself (i.e. makes itself real and identifiable) by means of its local applications, i.e. localisations (nowadays named selfies); that is to say by means of its ecos as local self-applications as local gods (i.e. as local ordering devices) the unreal and unidentifiable G.O.D. realises and identifies ITSELF.