The Compartmentalizing Godhead

Well, "water-brother," I prepared a detailed reply but the power went out as I tried to post it. Will try again later.

It's late, so what follows is the best I can do on short notice to recreate some ideas that were previously lost to the cybersphere.

Re: "How do you see God as one and connected to creation without falling into pantheism?"

I am probably more a panentheist than a pantheist.

Re: "[H]ow do you find that God cares about that creation and can be moved by it without breaking God into imperfect parts?"

I think the most important aspect of the Trinity is Consciousness, which I think is innately empathetic. I doubt Consciousness can choose not to care without ceasing to exist. Even sociopaths care, in their twisted way.

Re: "All things are stationary and it is the nothingness which moves through it."
"Zeno? This position would satisfy his proofs that motion is an impossibility and yet allow for the motion we perceive."

I tend to agree. Caveat: I don't conceptualize that things, in themselves, really move because I conceptualize that they do not really exist except as imperfect derivatives or entertaining illusions. The higher reality is the Godhead (Trinity), ruling and being ruled with an innate math web.

I would be happy to look further at a link for your and your son's ideas.

ISSUES:  Issues people often raise:

Can the Godhead contrive a weight beyond its capacity to lift?
Can the Godhead appreciate joy or sorrow, if it already knows and has pre-set all that is to unfold?
How can the Godhead appreciate what it is like to be a limited human, without itself being a limited human? And if it is a limited being, then how can it be God?

MODELING:  I have some ideas. Based on past experience, they are probably far from perfect.

SOURCE:  I think the Source, as such, is beyond our measurable comprehension, but not beyond our qualitative, intuitive appreciation. However, it presents in a Trinitarian mode. As Consciousness (omnipotence -- or all the power that is manifestly available), Substance (omnipresence of all that is presently and measurably manifest), and Information (omniscience of all that has been accumulated and stored from the past to the present).

COMPARTMENTALIZATION:  Somehow, via a math beyond our ken, the three faces flux, transition, phase shift, transpose. They com-part-mentalize.

While a "face" of the totality of the Trinity presents and functions as Consciousness, it will be omnipotent, but not omnipresent or omniscient. While a face is Substance, it will be omnipresent, but not omnipotent or omniscient. While a face is Information, it will be omniscient, but not omnipotent or omnipresent.

INTERPENETRATING:  No face of the Trinity abides except in conjunctive relation to the two other faces. From human perspective, we can relate to, intuit, try to measure, or try to model one face at a time -- but we cannot integrate the three of them simultaneously into a model wherewith to control, confine, predict, or regulate the Trinity as a whole.

RECONCILIATION:  Because of com-part-mentalization, the conscious face of the Trinity can compartmentalize to relate to each perspective. So how may it reconcile among all perspectives? Well, by itself, it doesn't. Reconciliation is the product of the Trinity as a whole. It is the unfolding upshot of pre-set rules, unanticipated eventualities, surprising apprehensions, and conscious contemporaneous part-icipation.

PHASE SHIFTING:  Consciousness does not die. it adopts and bonds with varying perspectives, bodies, and identities. The Trinity knows all, directs all, and is all present. But each aspect by which is presents, by itself, does not. The Conscious aspect, as such, does not know all. It can learn, be surprised, appreciate, and alter course. Jesus celebrated, drank wine, was sometimes disappointed, and wept.

ASTONISHING POTENTIAL:  The potential of the Trinity is probably infinitely beyond the limited imagination of any mortal perspective. As new forms unfold, we will experience more powerful ways to relate to the Trinity and to tinker out some of its astonishing capacities.  As forms for receiving potentials evolve, our receptivity to power and guidance from the Trinitarian Source will phase shift in astonishing ways.

PARTICIPATORY WILL:  We do not have Free Will. But we do serve as vehicles for the unfolding expression of contemporaneous and part-icipatory Will. We are also participants for "voting for" that of which our moral and civilizing values should consist. However, the "vote" of the Trinity is the controlling and reconciling vote.  Each perspective unavoidably dances in feedback-sync with reconciliation from the Source.

*****************

Re: "I like the idea of a thing that maths AND paths. I am reversing your position and positing the flux on our side; rather than faces presented faces observed, much like the blind men and the elephant."

Well said. I like the idea of "movement" via math that paths.

Regarding "movement":

IN THE BEGINNING: For the Trinity, there was, is, and will be no beginning. It simply is. "Thou art God" (Heinlein.)

ILLUSION: The perfect, ultimate, superior, never-ending reality in-itself is the Trinitarian Source. Everything else is derivative of it. Compartmentalization has to do with how the Trinity has capacity to express a resolution of the paradox of being omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. Physical motion, measurable space, time, matter, energy, as well as vector, mass, inertia, acceleration, charge, potential, wavelength, spin, etc., are all subordinate, fluxing, dependent, relational, illusionary aspects. Not even Consciousness, Substance, and Information are real, each in themselves. Rather, the face or aspect of each is co-dependent on and co-relational with the other two faces.

INTERPENETRATING IDENTITIES: The fluxing and changing identity of a person, body, or thing has to do with overlapping and relational observation, appreciation, bonding, and adoption. Identification has to do with presention by and to observers.

Part-icular Identites abide at various levels of consciousness, which interpenetrate (see Niebuhr) with everything. No-thing abides without a relationship with Consciousness -- whether pre-set, contemporaneous, or cumulating. Everything that expresses consciousness carries a quality of indiscernible or circular identity, in that consciousness is consciousness. In that regard, all consciousness is interconnected and innately empathetic. Each expression of it, however, may abide at various levels of seeming inanimacy, primitiveness, dim purposefulness, awareness of self, awareness of connections, awareness or appreciation of the Trinitarian Source.

PURPOSE: The purpose of each expression of conscious perspective seems to be to express, communicate, and accumulate memories of meaningfulness through space-time via bondings of fluxing interests and apprehensions. Communication seems to entail the flourishing of cultures and civilizations of perspectives, to entice and incite interesting, entertaining, and unfolding experiences. Especially the profound experience of connection to the Trinitarian Source (Spirit-Math), i.e., the Godhead, or Changeless-Changer.

The potential of its math-web is changeless. The present-ational and experiential manifestation of it among subordinate and compartmentalized perspectives changes, i.e., "MOVES."

INFORMATION: Can Information, once acquired and stored, ever be lost beyond retrieval? To the Trinity and its potentiality, no. This is because, to the Trinity, Information in itself does not really exist, but all of potentiality does. However, to any present and particular perspective of Consciousness, yes, stored experiences and knowledge of Information are phased, judged, salvaged, discarded, and lost.

CREATION:  Mortals don't create consciousness, as we experience it.  We simply facilitate forms for availing its emergence at various levels and layers of expression. Consciousness does not exist as a thing, in itself.  But it always exists, and always has existed, as a relational potential that is innate to the Trinity.

SYNCHRONIZING RECONCILIATION:  Each movie-compartmentalization occurs during each  feedback-interval of granular-continuosity that entails transmission--reception, fuzz--focus, undifferentiated potentiality--manifest interpretation, PreApprehension--PostAppreciation, and holistic possibility--individual particularization.  It is the higher-order math or dance-mechanics of that feedback-interval that mere mortals are not permitted to see or measure.  We are permitted to experience our choices, but not to measure in advance of our choices.

*****************

FREE WILL: I also have struggled with the idea of free will. Presently, I doubt whether even the consciousness of the Source has "free will." I don't see how anything can be entirely free to disobey constraints that must set forth parameters and framework for it to operate. For example, the Godhead seems constrained to a math-web. What else could account for it?

For another example, in manmade institutions, there is no freedom without rules. Still, the notion of degrees of freedom within definable parameters is vital. To understand the importance of freedom, one need only imagine a day without it. As in the case of One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich.

I think it is enough that we (and perhaps the conscious face of the Godhead) experience our Wills as if they were free. We experience Participatory Will. I don't think we can resolve whether the Trinity enjoys free will, and I doubt such incapacity of resolution is vital to us.

Moreover, we do not really exist apart from the Godhead. We only seem to. Our perspectives are, like our self-identities, only in the service of the Godhead. I presume its purpose is to experience, through us, all the things that make our existence seem interesting and worthwhile. That's ok, because, qualitatively and indirectly, we experience the Godhead. It's a feedback dance.

NAMASTE: Heinlein: Water-brother -- "Thou art God." No, you/we are not the sum or controller of God or the Godhead. But it is God, all the same, that functions through us.

SYNCHRONIZING RECONCILIATION: Each movie compartmentalization occurs during each feedback-interval of granular-continuosity that entails transmission--reception, fuzz--focus, undifferentiated potentiality--manifest interpretation, PreApprehension--PostAppreciation, and holistic possibility-individual particularization. It is the higher-order math or dance-mechanics of that feedback-interval that mere mortals are not permitted to see or measure. We are permitted to experience our choices, but not to measure in advance of our choices. The reason is that each measurement we take, with itself, entails a choice.

EXISTENCE: I don't mean to say that relational existence does not exist. Only to say that, in manifestation out of the potentiality, it is a derivative and fleeting kind of existence, even though it may be repetitive or rhyming. Still, from the perspective of any mortal identity, such mortal may be so "asleep" during any interval of its "nonmanifest-existence" that it would no more notice the period of its sleep than a movie goer would notice the period between movie frames. Each particular bit of Information exists, relationally to an unfolding context. If or when that context fundamentally phase-shifts, the Information, except in a generalized smudge-out sense, would, to me, seem during that period no longer to exist.

CHARACTER V. NATURE: I enjoy the exploration of the fundamental character and nature of the cosmos. I say "character" because I think the Reconciler has a conscious "face." I do not believe it can make good sense to consider it to be entirely a dumb inanimacy of dead math.

MORAL GUIDANCE: How do we decide what pursuits to treasure? I don't know, but we somehow do. Refer back to Synchronizing Reconciliation, above. :)

Feel free to question or apply any of this that you may find useful or not.

*********************

TO ADD LATER:

ORIGINATION, GENESIS, CHOICE MAKING, AND RATIONALIZATION:

BEGINNING OF SUBJECTIVITY:  Each preceding source-point for each present point-of-view is along a math-web, without which the precise point-of-view in question would not seem to have been expressed.  The Source smooths and guides a way along a math-web for our unfolding.  Each point of view is dependent for its manifested existentiality on a potentializing Source and its sponsoring math-web.


BEGINNING OF CHOICE-MAKING:  By some dance of appreciative feedback between the Source and each point-of-view, each choice along the unfoldment is made a split instant before conscious awareness of the choice is rationalized in the local brain.  Each present manifestation could not have been potentialized but for a preceding math-web.

BEGINNING OF LOCALITY:  There seem to abide twists and turns of potentializing math-webs, that may be interpreted and observed locally as cosmos.  We may discern back, close to an origination of a particular twist or turn.  But we cannot observe all the way back to "THE" originating point of the originating Source of all.

BEGINNING OF ETERNITY:  In part, this may be because there does not exist any such a beginning point for all beginning points.  Rather, the Godhead may simply abide and always have abided.  The idea of its seeming to require a beginning may be derivative of the subordintion of mortal experience.  But the potentializing existentiality of Math may always have been.  It is only the various and local-math-webs that have beginning points in their twists and turns.  But all of them would seem eventually to twist back to the basic and innate existentiality of Source-Math --- that has neither beginning nor end.  Rather, IT abides simply that it abides.  I am that I am.  IT is all that it is, yet IT's all-ness is immeasurable.

BEGINNING OF MORALITY:  What are IT's purposes and interests?  Is IT entertained by, and invested in, us?  Does IT, from any significant level of delegated interest, experience or appreciate that which we appreciate?  Is our experience of consciousness in any way connected or salvaged to IT?  Well, no mortal can truly know.  At best, we may intuit and believe.  What intuition seems to make the most sense?  After all, we have no choice but to avail the expression of unfolding choices.  So long as we channel a feedback and participatory expression of unfolding Will, we have no choice but to rationalize, morally, how we OUGHT to channel it.

BEGINNING OF DECENT CIVILIZATION:  Test:  What is needed to avail the decent expression of human freedom and dignity?  Applying that test, how may modeling and reflecting on our innate empathy with the conscious aspect of the Godhead guide us?  How may any conscious or subordinate expressions of the Arch-Godhead be interested in, or entertained by, reconciling and/or salvaging our attempts along that path?

**************

DANCING TO FEEDBACK:  May any aspect of the Godhead reasonably be conceptualized as ever holding the Perspective of the Holism?  If so, how may IT rotate back and forth to compartmentlize or appreciate a perspective of an individual versus a perspective of an encompassment?  While It were to compartmentalize to a perspective of an individual, it would not have a perspective of the whole.  While It were not to compartmentalize to a perspective of an individual, it would have a perspective of the whole.  So, how may (or does) IT rotate to compartmentalize or not to compartmentalize?

I don't know the How.  But I believe IT does.  Otherwise, absent a consciously qualitative and mediating connection between the whole and the parts, by what math would or should any particular thing or perspective find its way to any appreciative expression of existentiality?


While "I" am mortal, I do not have the perspective of the Holism.   While "I" were the conscious aspect of the Holism, I would not have the  perspective of the individual mortal.  But, by compartmentalizing back and forth, through an interval of coordinate and contemporaneous mediation, "I" would apprehend an ongoing process of reconciliation.  How else would  "I" make choices before my mortal brain even rationalizes them?  PSI.

***************

MATH WEBS:  The math-web in respect of which rules-of-conservation happen to be applied to our cosmos may be only one among a vast multiplicity of sub-math-webs that circulate and phase in and out of capacity to effect manifestations of cosmos.  Each math-web may avail its own cosmos.  Each cosmos that is sponsored with each such math-web may begin with a burst, then seem to expand, twist, and eventually "turn, dissipate, and circulate back" into a Source of math webs.  Each cosmos-sponsoring math-web may be but a sub-math-web of a grand potentializer of math-webs.  The Godhead:  A Source of sub-math-webs, with each sub-math-web being a source of its own cosmos.

MIND BOGGLE:  It may boggle a mind tuned to a locality to think in such terms.  To conceptualize that any Beingness may have capacity to sponsor such a seeming infinity of potentialities and manifestations!  Such astonishment may recede, however, upon apprehending that no-thing in part-icular is apprehended, experienced, interpreted, or "collapsed" from a math-web of potentiality into a cosmos of manifestation in the absence of a medium of CONNECTION (measurable Substance) between a local OBSERVER (agency of Consciousness) and a contextual RECONCILER (accumulater of Information).

IOW, no-thing could be apprehended to exist unless such a Source-Godhead exists.  That IT may have such power and capacity is astonishing.  Yet, IT is that IT is.

SYMMETRY:  From mortal perspective, there never was perfect Substantive symmetry.  Perfect symmetry in a form-in-itself is an oxymoron because we cannot imagine any such a form, nor can we imagine a form for anything that could constitute a thing-in-itself (such as an ultimate part-icle or building block).  What we can imagine are imperfect, fluxing, buzzes that are derivative of math values. To imagine a perfectly symmetrical thing is to imagine temporal and spatial boundaries for it.  Boundaries in space-time, in mass, and in various attributes that necessarily associate therewith, such as:  differential and changing densities between surface and center, relational motion, differential orbits within orbits, rotation, roll, wobble, vibration, spin, virtual spin, charge, potential, capacity, wavelength, frequency, amplitude, vector, direction, speed, acceleration, division, splitting, attraction, repulsion.  Perfect symmetry, without any non-symmetry in its wake or context, is simply not imaginable to imperfect mortals.

Substance does not exist except in relationships of non-symmetery.  There was never a symmetry in Substance to be "cracked."  The relational existence of non-symmetrical Substance entailes the relational existences of Information and Consciousness.  Those relations were never without a Source.  That Source is not the Source of their "beginning."  It is the Source and sponsor of their perpetual unfolding and reconfiguring -- without beginning or end.  The Source, being eternal and infinite to our implication, cannot by us be imagined to have or not have boundaries.  We simply cannot form whatever may constitute meta-boundaries for its form.

MATH:  Ultimately, the Source of math webs is a meta math web.  We can tinker with math values that work for practical purposes within our own cosmos.  But we cannot solve the perfect math for it.  That is because, in itself, our cosmos is imperfect.  Its math web is a derivative of a Source math web.  And every math web would be dead without a corresponding agency or Source, that activates ("moves through") the math web.  Evolving mortals cannot confine or control the ultimate math that is the coordinate companion of the ultimate Source, i.e., the Non-Evolving -- Evolver.

NATURE AND GOD:  Ultimately, Nature is Math.  Ultimately, the Godhead is the Source.  Functioning together, the Godhead and Math produce all appearances and phenomena that unfold to every particular context and locality as experiential Consciousness, presenting Substance, and accumulating Information.

****************

OF FLUX AND FUZZ:

So, if our Math Web is not cut off from (and closed) to the Source Math Web, what may be the Measurable Nature of the connection or Opening?  Would there be entailed a one-way measuring-opening, from the Source to Us, but not from Us to the Source?  What defines our practical parameters tends to be our separate Math Web.  To the extent we are Separate, an Opening must be one-way:  From IT to Us -- without necessarily altering our measurements or sensations.  Or without allowing a complete measurement of Itself.

If the Source Web were detectable at all, it would be by techniques such as "gravitational lensing."  So, what may help fill that bill?  Cosmic Constant?  Dark Energy?  Even for inroads for modeling Dark Energy, will there not always remain loose ends, extending to Infinity?

The thing about the Source is that it's not precisely measureable.  It's always accompanied with Fuzz.  It abides with what is measureable, subject to a measurement problem:  Fuzz.  The fuzz is inextricably bound with a problem of conscious observation.  What IS transitions to what appears to BE.  Which is coordinated with context and point of view.  Nature and Character.  Measurement Problem and Observer.  Appearance is not necessarily, measurably, or consistently the same to every Point of View.  Point of View of an Observer affects Reality as it Appears to the Observer.  And often as it appears to such other Observers who happen to a measurable or recalibrating extent to share a same Frame of Reference. 

IOW, what we take to be NATURAL REALITY (what I call Measurable Substance),  as a measurable, does not seem to be a consistent thing in itself.  Rather, it depends on Reconciliation among such Observers as happen to share a Frame of Reference, as well as a Source Reconciler.  Indeed, math-conserved Substance, accumulated Information about Substance, and present Consciousness, seem to be interdependent, so that no one can exist except in a Reconciling Flux with the other two.  And no one person or observer, by himself, controls or causes that Flux.  We do not have Free Will.  We have Participatory Will.  We get to feed back cycles of appreciation and apprehension, which somehow are reconciled.