A modern pantheist’s
The pantheist, as monist, gives the name, tag, title or reference GOD to an inferred one universal and automatic procedure that enables the emergence of n identifiable realities.
Each of n emerged identified realities is understood by the pantheist as a god. Gods in turn enable the further emergence of n identifiable realities.
GOD, as non-emerging, hence unidentifiable procedure and the gods, as emerged identifiable and thus real procedural outcomes, are deemed identical.
© 2020 by Victor Langheld
The pantheist, as monist, gives the name,1 tag, title or reference GOD to an inferred one universal and automatic procedure2 that enables the emergence of n identifiable realities.3
Each of n emerged identified realities is understood by the pantheist4 as a god. Gods5 in turn enable the further emergence of n identifiable realities.
GOD, as non-emerging, hence unidentifiable procedure6 and the gods, as emerged identifiable and thus real procedural outcomes, are deemed identical.7,8
© 2020 by Victor Langheld
1. The abstract name GOD is my personal preference. Other pantheists (i.e. monists all) use the name nature. The God of the (dualist) theist, i.e. henotheist, emerges as a secondary primus inter pares god. The pantheist conceives of his/her GOD as natura naturans and of the theist’s God as cultura culturans. The latter emerges as artificial (i.e. man made) procedure designed to increase the survival capacity of a selected (i.e. chosen) group whereby culturans overrides naturans.
2. A procedure is defined as a limited (hence quantised), thus limiting series of constraints. All procedures, both the universal (i.e. common) one named GOD and those adapted from (hence secondary to) it, named gods, emerge as reactions (to random momentum = energy). In other words, GOD, so the pantheist believes, does not act/create but reacts to random momentum, i.e. energy (turbulence, so the Buddha). Likewise do GOD’s tweaked (i.e. adapted) elaborations, i.e. the gods react rather than act. In other words, the entire identifiable and real universe and which consists of all identifiable realities emerges as reaction (to random momentum possibly triggered by a Big Bang).
3. Both identity (i.e. constraint difference, emerging as attribute) and realness (i.e. the affect of non-penetration) resulting from absolute constraint) happen as discrete (i.e. quantised) emergents. As quantised, momentary outcomes of the GOD procedure the pantheist names them gods (to wit, naturata).
4. At the risk of being stoned, beheaded or burnt alive (like Giordano Bruno) by fanatic theists.
5. i.e. differentiated GOD (procedure) adaptations (or elaborations), i.e. localised (i.e. differently constrained) GOD apps. That is to say, gods run the same emergence procedure as GOD albeit in a limited (i.e. more constrained) way, thus actualising as localities or eco-systems. Adaptations (i.e. the gods) are recursive, i.e. they repeat the original procedure albeit with a differential twist.
6. Such as an unlimited Universal Turing Machine = procedure. The UTM functions as reactive non-random procedure (of constraints = rules) that constrains (i.e. orders) (available) random data (i.e. input variables) into quantised (thus decided, thus complete) outputs which in turn serve as non-random constraints (i.e. as limited (universal) Turing Machines). In short, GOD is understood as universal (energy) ordering device (that is to say, as constraints or rules set) and god as its decided (thus identified and real) output (or rule).
7. In the ancient Indian religious anthology the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (approx. 2500 BC), the unlimited not yet differentiated universal emergence procedure (i.e. GOD) was called (nirguna) Brahman (neuter) and the limited, thus differentiated (hence with attributes) universal emergence procedure, i.e. the god, the (saguna) Brahman, alias Atman. Brahman (i.e. GOD) as unlimited emergence procedure and Atman (i.e. god) as repeating limited emergence procedure were deemed identical. Hence: ‘Aham Brahman asmi.’ The Brahman was defined as: ‘The one without a second.’ The second were n Atmans. Atmans serve as a local Brahman adaptations.
8. The gods emerge as (secondary) differentiated states of constraints (thus order), that is to say, as GOD’s (i.e. as primary or basic ordering (i.e. constraining) procedure) reaction (or response) to disorder (i.e. momentum randomness, chaos, entropy and so on). If GOD is conceived as basic (or ground, so Meister Eckhart) ordering (i.e. constraining) platform, then the gods emerge from/as its limited variations/adaptations.