Skai & Jake (cont.),
Ours is a jealous God. I think we might agree on that.
What I hasten to point out is that this jealousy is bound to be mutual. God is not about to share his creatures, nor we, our Creator.
Jake will tell us to get over it..... it's a big world with a big Creator. Whereas I harbor the quaint desire for a small world and a small creator. I am so yesterday!
Yes, size does matter to many.
It is very difficult for the moderns amongst us to embrace cosmic specificity and such quaint notions as human exceptionalism. The idea of a chosen people seems ludicrous to the modern theist, not to mention my ufological colleagues.
Surely I must be flogging a dead horse.
Surely we are living in an impersonal world. Or are we?
Personalism begins and ends at home. Are we at home in the universe? Clearly not. We do have a wanderlust. We are nomads, all. Family is our home. God is our tribal father/ancestor, before being anything else.
Many tribes had many gods. Yet, rather unlike the case with polytheism, Yaweh was no amalgam, certainly not historically. There was a very specific covenant. We have it in writing. There could be only one Arc and one Temple.
The only way to break that Covenant was to create a living and then risen Temple. The only way was to become even more personal and specific. Personalism had to be pushed to its logical limit.
This is the idea that is an anathema to the modern mind. It is the cornerstone that is still rejected, even by the most ardent of Christians, and certainly by everyone else. To be the quintessential Christian is to be the Jesus freak, essentially unchurched, communing with one's fellow vagabonds, waiting for Godot. The papacy retains much of this charism, to the chagrin of us regicides/deicides. Make no mistake, Jesus was the ultimate deicide. We do celebrate the death of God, above all else. We are born again into those dusty sandals, nomads that we are. This is our apokatastasis.
The Kurzweilian Singularity can be our Omega. Someone can and will personalize that singularity. I need hardly apologize for my feeble attempt. There will be a ground-zero for the wikipedian information implosion. If it is not the BPWH/SWH, I'll just have to eat my hat. Dang, me......
Craig D should know this as well as any. He almost has it. If only Sophia could smile upon him. Simplicity is in the air.
The singular Simple.......
Leibniz posited an infinity of monads. Is this not bizarrely contradictory? He was a relationalist, nonetheless. Relations are internal, all. No windows, please! Without windows, the plural monads become indiscernible, do they not? Microcosms, all.
Can I not distinguish between myself and an atom? Not if I'm an atomic physicist, absorbed in my work. Am I not a (cosmic) atom dreaming of a person? A flower in the crannied wall?
This is the only way to coherence. All else is a chasing after shadows and reflections.
The Monad is necessarily both analytically and synthetically simple. Complexity is just the bootstrap, of which we are the buckle. Complexity is our stepladder back to simplicity. It is the trail of breadcrumbs by which we mark our sojourn into the Platonic Cave. It is our silver bungee cord.
Simplicity is our Alpha and Omega. Atoms are the breadcrumbs. We come from heaven, trailing clouds of glory. Every atom is a logical knot in the warp and woof. It is Alexander who unties the knots. Jesus already did this, but he just made it look unbelievably simple. Now we will believe, hon, as if for the first time.
The Monad is also hollow. It is a hollow doughnut, with a woven, mobius surface, and a small spark-gap. Not too complicated. And do KIM that the Sun is just the quantum firewall, in the spark-gap...... http://www.nytimes.com/2013/08/13/science/space/a-black-hole-mystery-wrapped-in-a-firewall-paradox.html
Which, along with the Moon, is the master shuttlecock. Just check out Hamlet's Mill, to get the precessional details.
Any other questions?