The pantheist’s attitude to the world
The pantheist is the true mono-theist1 in that she believes that all created2 things run on the same automatic adaptation and self-regulation rules set, hence basic creation operating system.3
Consequently the pantheist does not differentiate between things at the fundamental operations level.4
PAN, the basic creation operating system, has no qualities save its rules.5 It is an automatic, hence blind operation.6 The qualities of its creation effects,7 and which are emergent8 only, being random and therefore communicable,9 and transient.10
Consequently PAN, as fundamental creation device, lacks human emotions, such as love, hate, mercy, anger, joy, compassion, morality, ethics and so on, all of which emerge with increasing complexity of PAN’s manifestations.11,12
PAN combines and recombines and adapts by forming compounds capable of increased survival capacity. In short, it creates food and on which it feeds to survive.13
The pantheists understands, and sometimes, if sensitive, actually feels that all creations are mere transient manifestations of one and the same creation operating system. So either she sits on the fence14,15 and watches in joy or horror16 at PAN’s ever increasing drive to complexity and increased formal survival perfection. Or she gets off the fence by reverting to the henotheist, ‘I alone am God’ stance/state and participates is PAN17 in PAN’s18 creative effort.
© 2018 by Victor Langheld
1. Those who believe in ‘my (chosen) one God, such as Jews, Christians, Muslims, Shivites, Mahayana Buddhists and so on, are called heno-theists. There god serves to create division and so create and sustain identity.
2. For created read: compounded.
3. And which I shall henceforth call PAN, called the Brahman (or Atman) in the Upanishads.
4. Or, as it says in the Bhagavatgita: ‘She sees all with an equal eye.’
5. In the Upanishads named the nirguna (no qualities) Brahman. Taoists named PAN ‘the Way’ or ‘Tao’.
6. In other words, it navigates blindly, so to speak on blind auto-pilot, as do all its emerged after-effects, namely the created world.
7. i.e. as impermanent events presenting as it were as PAN’s tangible or communicable skin, i.e. its real-time everyday manifestations.
8. i.e. as side or after effects.
9. ‘Only random events carry instruction.’
10. i.e. momentary (hence absolutely real) as bit and transient (hence unreal) as string (or bite) of bit moments.
11. In other words, Pan’s (i.e. God’s) most advanced emergent state, as observed by the human, is currently the human, as are the human’s allegedly finer, i.e. more humane qualities. These disappear quickly if and when the human’s survival is threatened and she needs to revert to an earlier (less human) emergent form with a more basic survival thrust, as happens during crises of all kinds, such as sickness, war and so on.
12. In short, the human is the best/most perfect PAN/God could do (i.e. bootstrap) to date given the dodgy and unpredictable circumstances of automatic (possibly pressurised) combination (elsewhere understood as mutation), trial by mortal combat, i.e. de-selection as failure to survive, thus becoming fodder, thus random selection.
13. As suggested in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, ca. 800BC, to wit: ’I am fodder. I am feeder!’ In other words, life is a food chain. All emergent forms are both predator and prey. Whereby a good chicken (formerly Red Indian) is a dead chicken (formerly Red Indian).
14. That is to say, as the Daoist, the Buddha and many more who were independent because of wealth or social; status, did,
15. The Pantheist attitude cannot but be non-judgemental in that all creation is God and therefore perfect in itself as it is. In this regard she Baruch Spinoza and Voltaire..
16. With joy/happiness if she takes the (PAN as) predator, i.e. the winner position or horror, sorrow/unhappiness (Pali: dukkha) if she empathises with the fate of the (PAN as) prey, i.e. the loser in the trial (meaning selection) by mortal combat and which is one basic operation of PAN.
17. i.e. as a PAN clone or fractal elaboration.
18. Note the use of ‘pan’ writ small and ‘PAN’ writ large. A similar development can be observed in the later Upanishads when the Atman, wrongly translated into English as the Self, is differentiated as as local, i.e. inner atman (i.e. the localised clone) and Supreme (or universal) ATMAN (i.e. the basic operating system or matrix) in translation writ as self and SELF.