"I HAVE TOUCHED THE FACE OF GOD""
SUPREME BEING OR SUPREM PRINCIPLE? Part II

Does this match what we "know" about God?

well, Theology and Philosophy were joined at the hip for most of the last 1600 years, with St. Thomas Aquinas putting the finishing touches on it such that Thomistic theology became applied Aristotelian philosophy (one thing about the Dominicans, whether you're talking about Aquinas, Albertus Magnus or Toquemada, these guys do what they do bigtime and with supreme confidence in the rightness of their actions: The reasoning is valid, it's the factuality of the premises that is in doubt here). In fact much of what is modern theology, even Protestant, has been influenced by Aristotelianism since the Graeco-Roman period, when the Romans turned to the culture of, especially pre-Imperial Greece for intellectual stimulation, which was dominated by Aristotelian thinking. Whe Rome collapsed, what remained was a "snapshot" of the culture of it's last century and a half which was then carried through the Dark and Middle Ages as an ideal that would lead to recovery. Consider those two eras as a 50 generation long case of Post-traumatic Stress Syndrome with the Western world having gone into a fetal position desparately clutching the tattered "security blanket " of the last remnants of the civilzed way of life: At least they chose well.

Now, let's see if my idea holds water

  1. God is at the highest level of existence: Well what is the level of conscousness that can trace from the concrete to the most abstract and back smoothly and efficiently? This principle makes it all happen. I can look at almost any human activity; funny money, the Obama election, the link between Environmentalism and the death of the US manufacturing industry, then plug them into the branches of philosophy and trace what and how they do as they did and what they will do. I am not the first to do this and anyone who wishes to make the effort to understand can do this. Just look at, and follow the logic using the Metaphysics (how the world works) - Epistomology What were they thinkin'?!) - Ethics (What is moral, what is immoral?) and Politics (What kind of government is this?) You do this by paying attention to what you're reading and noting the common "threads" or "themes" and how, though written at different times, the latter articles, as demonstrated by events, follow the patterns indicated by the earlier ones. It's as easy as 1, 2, 3. If you're really practiced, you'll see the patterns across the two sets. In all cases, just look at what I used as "givens" ususally sourced in some way and then follow the logic. A rather hefty "assignment" but it will show what I've tapped into. And all because of Space patrol. Ironically, you see two other theological attributes: a ruthless justice; bad philosphy and behavior commenserate with that leading to just what you'd expect and an almost divine mercy: They could have gotten off that boat at any time and the rest would not have happened. People wonder why I get so really bent out of shape when I see the eminently predictable happen and look at me like it's my fault or I should know better than to expect proper action given that the results are predictable. I'm not going to say anything here about God and prophetic vision (isn't the use of visual references for understanding a sightist slur agains Persons of Blind aka Uselesseye-Americans?). That's too scary even for me but pardon me if I look like that cat that ate the canary (it was a noisy annoying thing anyway).
  2. God is Simple [not complex]: Two words: Existence exists, they take about one second to utter.
  3. God is omnipresent: Remember that sweeping gesture that Rand described? it meant the whole ball of wax. The Newtonian Synthesis speaks to the universality of the laws of Science. Any questions?
  4. God is omnipotent: Well, when you establish the existence of the whole universe as a statement or axiomatic concept, that necessarily covers all the things that are and were and all the laws by which they work(ed). To requote that line from EST, "when you tell it likeit is, your word is law[emphasis added] in the universe". To quote Ayn Rand's favorite phrase from Bacon, "Nature, to be commanded, must be obeyed" Now my spin on that is "Nature, when obeyed, is commanded".
  5. God is unknowable. False the actual theological term was "incomprehensible due to the limitations of intellect". Well we don't know half of a percent of a percent of what there is to know because what there is to know is infinite. As a corollary of both this and omnipresence, God is infinite: Well. the universe and therefore existence is all there is. Works for me.
  6. God cannot be "explained" or "proved to exist": Well Existinece, the whole ball of wax, the big Kahuna cannot be explained or proved. It serves as the basis and foundation and therefore the root of expalnation and proof. That is, explanation and proof attempt to link, and succeed or fail at that attempt, the subject of discussion to the universe in a systematic, coherent way. In fact, nothing that is can or needs to be "explained" or "proven to exist", they are either self-evident or shown to exist by demonstration. Since "God" is etherial rather than solid and since the belief system relies on the supernatural and revelation, it is impossible to demonstrate or make such a being self-evident. That is why, whne Pope Urban VIII told Galileo "Proof destroys faith" he knew whereof he spoke and was dead on. The squelch for God being the "First Cause" of the Universe is this: For God to be, he had to be something; that is have an identity, and he had to work from somewhere; a place. So you alredy have the makin's for the universe, being and a place to be for God to be and be at, before you even have God. In fact, I can say with absolute certainty that you will never proove the existence of god, or even of yourself: No way: Never happen: Can't be done nohow.
  7. God indwells in all who accept Him: As I said earlier. this axiomatic concept binds the consciousness to the universe so it must be in both. As an idea it resides and works in the human mind, its reference is to the whole universe. So it does reside in those who get it. It is both of (pertaining to action) the self and of (pertaining to orientation) the whole of the universe. Also
    • The spirit that indwells is the "Holy Spirit", the mission of which is to supply knowledge; more specifically, wisdom: Well, what are principles all about? Knowledge and wisdom and a principle will enable in accordance with its rank. So what rank will a supreme principle enable to? "Existence exists" and its corollaries are true for all things in all places and for all itme. The EST quote; when you tell it like it is, your word is law in the unierse. Not just Earth, Mars and Venus, or Alpha Centauri, or Andromeda or just all of these but All Over The Place.
    • This changes your nature. Well, at the time this is usually gotten, the brain is finishing up the transition to the adult level so you have that. But beyond that. This goes into what is analogous to the Operating System: That is, This is systems programming. It governs the way you operate as a rule in any area of knowldege. In one of my blog entries I started off with a discussion of navigation and astrogation and from there, went to policy analysis and the loss of the Iraq War (and make no mistake, it is a lost cuase). Thus could I take three fields of endeavor. One nautical, one fictional and one that seems totally unrelated and reason across them. If I did not know that, by virtue of the fact that "Existence exists" and it's corrolary, the proper method of thought, logic, applies to all that exists, I could not have done that. I still have the same IQ as when I was 25 (or maybe a bit less) What was upgraded was the functional level. So after a fashion, my nature as a thinking being was changed. Also if you read that entry, You would not understand it if you did not grasp that same principle. It's just that I get it at the conscious level, which most people don't. For me that understanding is explicit as well as implicit and therefore crystal clear in meaning, scope and derivatives.
  8. God is Truth: Well Existence exists is true beyond all else that is true. It is the ultimate metaphysical truth and subsumes all others. It is the underlying, often unstated foundation of all objectivistic philosophies and philosophy. Beyond that, you've seen me write that the origin of evil and the worst evil is self-absorbedness. What do you think the failure of an adult to get, grasp and accept this is? As a corollary, "...God will give them over to strong delusion that they will believe a lie". What is self-absorbedness? when you hear about having "your head up your ass" it means being in a mental closed cycle into which nothing comes from the real world, which makes that vulgarity a synonym for being self-absorbed. This also touches on the matter of Original Sin. "The only choice Man has is to think or not to think" and it is a forced choice because your senses, as long as they work, present the world of sight, sound taste touch and smell to you whether you want that world or not. One either focuses on the real world or tries to evade it. The attempt to evade it, the deliberate blank out, is the heart and soul of egocentrism, the psychological term for being self-absorbed, And did I not say that the origin of evil is being self-absorbed. This does not mean that we don't introspect, it means that we refuse to acknowledge the existential primacy of the real world of which we and our mentality ar a part. and it is a result of having the power to make a fundamental choice, and the only real choice, too. So I guess that bit of theology holds as well but not as they say it does.
  9. God demands of man a Confession: Too often that is taken as a listing of one's wrongdoings, acceptance of guilt, resolution to not do them again, a chore assigned to the pentitent after which absolution is given. A confession is far more. It is coming to a whole noew understanding of the world and of moral matters, as in the Augsberg Confession. Once a confession is made, one is not the same as before and wants no part of wrongdoing as he comes to understand it. It is contrary to my nature to lie, cheat, rob or steal without provocation. It's just not going to happen as long as I retain control of my mentality. I don't want what that brings with it and I'm too proud.
  10. Pride is a sin. The referent to that is hubris which is a kind of pride that comes from being self-absorbed, also called "false pride" and I know that to be commanded, nature must first be obeyed, so I guess that subsumes Islam after a fashion.
This leaves us with the "born again of the spirit" phenomenon. I've heard many young adult Randians (18 to 25) described as acting like members of a religious cult. Not hard to explain. So it does pass theological muster in enough areas to have it nailed. But then, it was Rand who, rather than lebelling religion as occult drivel and dismissing it, corectly identified it as "a primitive form of philosphy". This raised the level of both proto-psychohistory and Psychological Anthropology. It explained in rational terms something that had had psychologists stumped since Freude tried to deal with a common human emotional experience expressed as an "oceanic feeling" by one of his patients which he labelled as incomprehensible rubbish.

Given the psychological goings-on that I've described and the over-arching, universe-wide scope of all of this, it all fits, doesn't it? It is normal to experience our principles and ideas as some sort of entity since they have a "shell" meaning they have attributes and specific ways they function, meaning act, so it is not hard to image them as things that do things. This is psychological, more precisely psycho-epistemological since concepts are epistemological tools like software that are the products of physio-psychological processes. Now epistemoligy rests on metaphysics. It is metaphysics applied to the unique attribute of Man; the volitional rational consciousness or alternatively. the intellect and the will aka the soul. So, internally, meaning psychologically, these concepts will take on metaphysical attributes and be experienced as things. Since they operate by fixed laws based on physio-psychological processes. the do kind of acquire a life of their own outside the will or control and run themselves. To the pre-philosophical peoples either in hisoty or by not being trained iin the rudiments of the subject, they would be thought of as seperate entities. Just how strontg can this be? Well, if you've ever heard Coast to Coast talk about "shadow people". Here's the dirty little secret. When persons enter a room, it's through a doorway so that when you look at a doorway under the right lighting conditions (usually into a brighter area) it's natural for a person to be there so your mind puts a person-shape there, in my case, translucent dark brwon. I've been aware of that since I was 13. There is a syndrome that occurs as a person loses eyesigt where images of familiar things are super-imposed on or even appear to replace what is actually in the visual field. So this is powerful stuff. and the untrained could indeed experience it as a god or gods. If a kid is doing this in a culture that gives creedence to the "supernatural" and the grownups get invloved, well, you can see where that can go. At the Carroll Center fro the Blind, noewly blind persons are taught to take what they have and turn them into pictures, at least in 1975. It's called "videation". So we know that psychological things can have input into the sensory area: "Hey turn it down, willya: I can't hear myself think!". This is not ntutso, this in normal but if it is not controlled, it becomes nutso. This does not mean that we are hardwired to believe in hocus-pocus: What it means is that we have an excellent set of facilities that if not learned how to use, get finagled into hocus-pocus, mumbo-jumbo and googly-moogly.

So what?

Well it does what religion only promises but cannot deliver. Two concepts that religion borrowed from the Greeks are "spirutuality" or what Aristotle called purely human function, and "enoblement", that the develpment of these functions to a higher level makes a person better. To the extent that they practice them, they stand head and shoulders above the Nihilists and why I am friendly toward the ordinary religious person. Relidgion is a primative form of philosophy attempting to answer the same question but limited to the range, depth and scope of the tenth century B.C. or the seventh before Aristotle. It is sort of like looking at the world through a keyhole. It relies on rite and show and therefore, a strong esthetic component: I've said for years that if the Catholic Church wanted to tempt me back, all they had to do was re-institute the Latin Mass and get rid of the phoney "peace" things. That'd be an offer I'd find hard to refuse. It was a glorious thing and by the time I was 15 I didn't mind the rules. They marked me as person of worth and substance and I have said repeatedly that if I weren't an atheist, I'd be a Roman Catholic. There is a sense of grandeur and a thread of Aristotelianism that gives it both style and substance which it is fast tossing aside to appeal to the self-absorbes jerks that Americans are turning into; having inherited paradise on earth they get stressed out if they can't get a new car every two years and are eternal debtors. Although I've heard a couple of bits of advanced theological thinking out of the Protestants, but they are still too early in their development for the rich heritage that the Roman and Orthodox churches have. Of Judaism and Islam I know too little to pass judgement.

However this comes at a price. First there's so much mumbo-jumbo to their idea of spirituality that it becomes useless in the real world and overshadows the true and good that they have. Do you think that it's an accident that the same bunch who are fighting to the last man to keep "In God We Trust" on the coinage are the saem ones that are shovelling gold by the ton in trhough the back door? It strikes me that they do not believe that their God will give the fairy-dust crowd their come-uppance or if they do, wish to use secular means to insulate themselves from the disaster that they hope will befall the rest of us. "in God We Trust But In Gold We Deal" huh? They'd best hope there is no God whom they say is not mocked. Nothing like having it both ways; Rush and Shaun did not get their fortunes by praying, did they? Second the enoblement process starts by totally disrespecting the person by demonizing and denegrating him to a worthless, innately evil creature that one would not touch with a 39-1/2 foot poll, to the level of a 3-decker sourkraut and toadstool sandwich with arsenic sauce and they're sooo surprised when the liberals take them up on it: 'SCUSE Me!! Isn't there some part of a credit report commercial that goes "I could'a seen this comin'at me like an atom bobm"? We don't need to do that. We also don't need to brainwash children: First, this kind of thing is inappropriate for children who can not understand this. So why bedevil the poor things with it as well as frustrate ourselves to pieces? Second, to us, the idea of a coerced or manipulated acceptance, and the mental problems it can create is repugnant. That does not mean that children aren't to be controlled, only that this is to be done in a manner appropriate to that level, for instance, you're not going to reason with a 5-year-old so a simple system of explicit, clear, rudimentary rules reinforced by consequences using reward and punishment will do. The uncle who raised my operated by a "three strikes' system; The first was to tell you this is wrong, the second ws to make sure you heard and understood and the third time, the boom got lowered; I pretty much felt that I got a fair shake. I can count on my two hands the number of times he raised his hand to me in 17 years. An 8-year-old is a different matter (If I started to get out of line I'd get "What would Commander Corry say?" or "Hey: Baccaratti!") as is a 16-year-old. It is a known fact that those who, as children, given strong religions training are more vulnerable to falling into cults. especially left-wing cults as late adolescents and young adutls. These cults appeal to the strong moral fire that is part of the "born again of the spirit" process.

Not only does the supreme principle rather than the supreme being approach deliver, but it does it better. Religion presumes that there is some percieved or even actual benefit(s) to evil actions of sufficient value. I and my like have no such delusions. Also, I don't brag about that, it's the least one ought to expect and doesn't make me "holier" or more "pious" or one whit better than the next person. It does, however, make me better off: I'm fairly easy to deal with, my moral vision is clear, not having been compromised by having to deal with wrongdoing on my own part and I am sure-footed and adaptable in the real world. On the other hand, when provoked, such as by duress or coercion. we feel perfectly free to do what it takes. If it takes "lying" then the moral onus is on the person who apllies the strongarm or other manipulative tactics. There are persons to whome I would lie regularly and without compunction (on the order of "Gran, does your dog bite", "No chile", five minutes later "WWAAHHHHH!. You said he didn't bite", "Yes, I did, but you didn't tell me you were going to try to pull his tail off, now did you?"). Aristotelian philosphy enables one to decide what is provocation and by what set of rules. If the longevity of the existence of the system is a value, we trace our roots and lineage back 2300 years to a race of the most civilized people of the time and not to constantly warring tribes and brutal rulers.

So we have the good stuff and don't have to reduce you to the moral level of a turd to start out with and we have it better and stronger and we have better ways to make it stick. Works for me.

There's one more attribute of God here. You may think to yourself that acquiring the power and or happiness that this brings is worth the efflrt. You will be wrong. There's only one reason good enough to do all of this and that is because it is true, therefore useful and therefore a valuable tool. Otherwise it just won't happen. If you try to fake or force it, it will not connect with the outside world. In and of itself, it is purely psychological and is part of that system in a certain place and way. Are we not told that "You cannot bargain with the Lord" and "God is not mocked". So Pascal's money is no good here. Once you know it and get it. It no longer is under conscious control. It becomes a part of you to append to every statement you make "and this is true [I better check to be sure]". This is automatic and triggers the choice to think or not to think, to get in touch with the world or not to. To make the effort to know, understand and be certain or to deliberately evade. This makes explicit (albeit subconsciously) the defining attribute of the adult mentality whether one knows it or not. And as for the evader; there is another apt Biblical quote. "...and God will give them over to strong delusion that they will believe a lie" and too many of those evaders claim the mantle of Objectivism.

Now let us get back to the title "Supreme Being or Supreme Principle". "Being" implies a physical existence. "Principle" means abstraction, usually of action (having a verb), read psychological. Such a being can not and therefore does not exist. It would violate rules even theists agree to; then violate. Even if such a being were to exist, whether being or principle, the validity would be the same as would the net result. Now, in fact, that is, the real world, we have4 had 6,000 years of prayer and 400 years of science. When would you rather get a heart attack or stroke (look up the origin of that word), 1610 or 2010?, or cancer or need to go to London from Paris quickly or be on trial for your life or which life expectancy would you rather have and why? So which has conferred more power? "Existence Exists", both the stated axiom of Objectivism and the unstated underpinnings of Aristotelianism , is the beginning of science. Even in Theology, God is also called the 'First Principle" and a "sustaining principle [keeps the universe in existence over time]".

Why I chose the "theme song" I did ought now be clear. It is an ultimate Psychedelic piece by the ultimate Psychedelic band and illustrates the promise of the Psychedelic. That promise, because of the "Tune in, turn on, drop out" slogan of the drug-infested hippies has remained mostly unkept. Please notice that the drugs which were supposed to open the mind and failed are now used just to get a cheap thrill; quite a comedown from the New Messiah. after 40 years I am keeping that promise.