Three in One

First topic message reminder :

Here we have a slightly new departure, inspired by desert dweller.

Let’s see what happens.  Hopefully, we’ll come up with a better title.  

This is a slight detour from the Great Distraction in the Sky.  

Yes, I have claimed to be a monist, but it seems that you can’t be a monist and Personalist at the same time.  More technically, we’re talking three persons in one substance.  

There is to be a strong emphasis on history, as inspired by Joachim da Fiore, where Disclosure leads us into the age of the Spirit.  

Folks who don’t buy into this Metanarrative are welcome to argue against it, but they are not welcome to be continually advocating some alternative or for nothing.  

Personalism is the name of this Game.  

All other gamers are invited to state their games, but game elsewhere.  Thanks for the understanding.  

I hope that this will reduce the confusion in these parts.

And I do hope and trust to have the continued understanding of Cyrellys.  If an open mind is not to lead to nihilism, we must respect the personal nature of mind and of mind’s ‘objects’.  


9..........

There are several artifacts that need pointing out...... specific links will be given later.......

The mnemonic

The earlier blogs and websites.  

The abortive BPWiki..... it should be resurrected, in due course.

KWF and the Chronicles

There are various YouTube channels, which might be pointed to.

Etc.......


We must respect other persons, at all times.  

We must respect others’ opinion, as long as those opinions may be cogently argued, and that includes arguing that said opinions deserve the label of being a better BPWH.  And, by the way, that mnemonic is for best possible world hypothesis.  


SR,

Hang in there, please.  

Let me say, however, that there is no outside.  smelly is as near to the outside as you are liable to see in this world.  The outside is parasitic upon the inside, as you may see, pretty clearly in this case.  

What we so faciley refer to as the ‘objective’ is actually the intersubjective.  That is the sense in which I am a monist.  The Monad is the One substance in which all persons reside.  All persons are equal, but, historically, three persons stand out.  In the patriarchal nomenclature of the historian, Joachim da Fiore, we have the age of the father, the age of the son, and the age of the spirit, aka the Aquarian age.    


10:10.........

To inaugurate the Aquarian age, we have TSA, which was just to provide an excuse for the grey lady to clamber aboard.  Following that will be tsa2&3, in that order.  However, it would be more accurate to name it tla3.  This is where J&K come into the picture.  As I have previously mentioned, tla3 is a cover operation, unbeknownst to both j and k, (as was tsa1), but not entirely unbeknownst to the church.  This is what I hear from a sometimes unreliable source.  Seeing is believing, as we say in the disclosure world.  I’m not sure what tsa2 is supposed to be.  tsa2 and tla3 might be the same, for all I know.  Grant may be better informed on this matter.  


Tonight, there will be a three hour Rabbit Hole meeting, with host Grant Cameron, 8-11pm/EDT..... https://zoom.us/j/387693722 . I plan to be there.  


The roll out for tla3 was in Colorado.  I did not attend.  Neither did J or K.  I have received no further information about it.  OM is to be the site for the next phase.  Some links are to be offered, but they are not available, as yet.  The overriding issue is between the physical and the metaphysical aspects of the rattling cage and any associated phenomena, ie, to what degree is this a portal phenomenon?


11:50.........

Sign,

I see that you had a question for me, as to the source of the BPWH........

The source is just my own imagination.  I have never claimed otherwise.   I have never claimed to be a channel or contactee of any sort.  I have only claimed to be an ‘expert’, ie. a former drip under pressure.  

I pursue truth in the only way I know how, ie. logically.  

Science claims to have a hegemony on truth.  I dispute that claim.  

I even dispute their claim to a hegemony on empirical truth.  

The only claim that I might vouchsafe to science is their claim to analytic truth, which I see as an empty claim, since they have no analysand, if I have stated that properly.  


The analysand of personalism is persons, as the analysand of atomism is atoms.  

Persons are the only things in themselves, to paraphrase Kant. All else is derivative therefrom.  

Deists and pantheists, among others, disagree.  

Persons, unlike atoms, do not, cannot, just swerve in the void.  

Persons can hardly exist apart from other persons.  

We are social beings.  There is a hard to define milieu of persons.  The best existing theory of this milieu is provided by panentheism.  

Unless you are an atomist, the only other alternative is pantheism.  Pantheism has no explanatory power.  It can only accept what is.  

Panentheism provides a transcendental dimension.  It provides a vantage from which to critique the world.  It provides a vantage from which to postulate the BPWH.  That is what I have done.  No more.... no less.  


1........

However, if this is, indeed, the BPWH, then all critique is futile.  

A paradox.  

Yes, but it is a paradox we can live with.  It is a paradox that most of us agree to take upon ourselves..... and share.  

We find freedom in our imagination and poetry, and in imagining God’s Kingdom on Earth.  

Yes, many have tried to storm the gates of that heaven.  

But when we finally get to that Gate, we turn around and realize that our sojourn to that point was, at least, half the fun.  Enjoy.......

smelly has crossed that Jordan.  He curses me for not taking the plunge....... so does the Princess.  Don’t worry about me, I’m just admiring the view.  I have seen life from both sides, now.  

Fear not.  Disclosure is at hand.  It may not be quite what we expected, but it will suffice unto the day.  


You may not treasure your innocence.  Allow me to, vicariously.  This is our childhood’s end, children.... suffer the children to come unto me.  

smelly calls us muppets, derogatorily.  There is no derogation in God’s Kingdom.... not even for smelly.  

I have spoken of our very worst fear.  This is the chyu situation.  I told the Princess that our biggest problem was that we have no problems.  

She looked me in the eye.  I blinked.  

We cannot blink.  

Yes, some were chosen.  Even I was chosen.  Now, all are chosen.  If I have any message, that is my only one.  

Yes, we do circle back to tribalism.  That is from whence we came.

The very last tribalism, on this side, is to be witnessed on the hills of Judaea.  

Come down, out of the hills.  We goyim do not have cooties.  

Is there an or else?  Yes.  Ask Harvey.  

All that’s left is........ me, too......


(cont......)

desertdweller wrote:Hobbit,

You only think that about the word essence/substance, because you are a closet materialist and kantiant, like 90% of Western culture.  That is not what he Philosophers we’re thinking of when they used that term though...

"Kantiant"
I have been called many similar sounding names.
It's all water off a ducks back.

Essence of god.

GOD is a human invention to describe what they were unable to describe.
A cop out , as such.
It is human arrogance to declare that they are in gods image.
hobbit

Stop, hobbit,

I asked you question........

Do you recognize no Source?

hobbit and dd,

Please direct your questions to and through me.  

If you wish to carry on a separate discourse, please use your own thread.

I’m sorry, but there has to be a moderator here. That’s me, on this thread.

When I describe the essence of God, this is what I am referring to.
A. God is a spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable, in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness and truth.


This is the mono in monotheism, or what Dan calls the monad, or the “one” in the One in Three.  It refers not to the person of God, but the nature/essence of God...

Better Dan?

(Cont...)

Still too small a box to contain God.
Again another statement I have no argument in a general sense with. But, LOL, I think we are still embryos.

I may be totally off base with this, something you may have asserted; that we are near an omega event? I mean I don't want to necessarily start over again. Is it just that I have the wrong end if the stick. I kinda understand the whole closed time loop thing, but...?

No, dd,

This is not much better.  

An infinite God cannot be a presupposition.  

You might as well be a preacher.  This is no place for preachers.


The main presupposition is coherence.

Let’s, please talk about coherence.......


(cont.......)

Why can an infinite God not be a presupposition?

You told me to continue on and make myself at home.  What would you like from me in this discussion?

dd,

There are better presuppositions.  

I suggest coherence.  Let’s talk about that.

We are looking for the best possible presupposition.

The one necessary presupposition to our continued dialogue.

I request that other folks attend to unraveling this first an paramount question....... ok?



(cont.......)

Dan,

In order for a subject to be coherent, it must be self-contained, self-referential, and self-consistent.  Agree?  What would add?

Very good, dd, I agree.

In order for this to be the case, we must posit some form of monism.  

When you speak of a duality between Creator and Creation, you are positing a dualism.  

That is a non starter, in my book.

When you separate the two, you are speaking of Deism, not theism.

There is that of God in each of us. No? This is the Source of our Personhood. Yes?


(cont.......)

Dan,

Not so fast.  I find the source and origin of all coherence in the oneness of God, also known as divine simplicity.  This is known by both God and man through Triunity (the three).  Creation may be distinct from God, as an object, but arises from the decree of God (point three above), which is identical with god Himself.  In that way I am not a dualist in the platonic sense.  But I am probably getting ahead of myself.

Care for me to elaborate on my second sentence above?

Try this, dd........

We are figments in the mind of God.

This is where the notion of the Logos comes from.  No?

The world is more like a great thought than a great machine.  

I am also seeing a bootstrapped Creation process, wherein we, sapient Creatures, are an essential part of that bootstrap.  

We are on our way to becoming One with God.

God died on the cross, if you will, and now we to be the resurrection of God.

Is there any other way to make sense of Creation? I’m doubtful.



(cont.......)

Dan,

Yes we are objects in God’s one, eternal thought; known as His decree.  It is the tapestry of all created reality.  However, the Logos is his eternal self-reflection/self-refraction in on Himself - or His Son - as it is revealed to us in creatively terms.  So In general, I agree with you.  The decree of God is formed in and by the Logos/Word/Son - as the Father knows Himself in and through the Son; and so He also forms his   Decree/plan in the same way.  As the St Paul says, we are literally predestined “in” the Son.

Not bad.

Therein I see a personal God, not an infinite God.

God is one of us...... we are one of Him. No?  

The Infinity comes from the concept of the of the best possible world, which world is necessarily embedded in Eternity.  No?

Furthermore, in the best possible cosmos, turn about is fair play......

The Creator is also a figment in the minds of the (sapient) Creatures.  

If this sounds like a precarious situation, not to fear, we are eternal.  The ‘game’ of Salvation has been fixed.  All bets are off. Yes, all this is predestined.  

I think you have already alluded to Destiny.  

This is where the small, personal CTC comes into its own. The Alpha and Omega are practically embedded in one another. The Omega is the head of the Ouroboric serpent, the tail-eating cosmic dragon. The Telos is the tail, if you will. The reversal of polarity is the reversal of time....... no biggie.


(cont......)

Dan you said;

"This Earth is a Singular Creation, embedded in Eternity.  This is a closed timelike curve.  There is a single soul, experiencing life billions of times."

Could you shine a little of on that statement for me?

Dan,

When I get back to my study, I will try to give a coherent and concise definition of what I mean by infinite.  Often people think of an infinite sequence of numbers, or an infinite extension of space or temporal moments.  This is not what theologians mean by the Word, for God isn’t relative to time and space, rather, time and space are relative to God - indeed, they dwell in Him...

Now per our existence in the decree and the eternal BPW...

(Cont...)

wk,

There is the single electron theory of the universe, as promulgated by John Wheeler.  

This is the single soul theory.  We are all soulmates, whether we like it or not.  

Does God have a separate Soul..... a cosmic Soul?  I suggest not.

Do we have a soul apart from our individual neurons?  I suggest so.  

Are we not the brain cells of God?  

The paradox is resolved by Personalism.  Persons exist, not brain cells or atoms...... certainly not the way we do.  Their existence is decidedly derivative.  

What then is the Monad if it is not the Cosmic Soul?  

This is where trinitarianism comes into the picture.  This is where the Incarnation comes into the picture.  

God is a person, sports fans, just like us.  This verges on blasphemy, does it not?  I guess that’s why I’m a Jesus freak.   There is something rather freaky about the notion of the Incarnation.  

To make a long story short, we could sit down and have a beer with God, and never know the difference.  God might not know either.   How is that for Omniscience?  

Think of God as a relay team...... who...who’s got the baton?  Thankfully, we seldom need to know.


9........

God is infinite, says dd........

I say that love is infinite.  

Is not hate infinite, also?  Hate is parasitic upon love.  Hate can only destroy what love creates.  Even if hate destroyed Creation, the infinite potentiality of love could never be destroyed.  The claim is that Creation is eternal, and there is an infinite potential in each moment.  

When I think of the infinity of God, that’s what I think of.  



(cont.......)

Dan, what about the electron? I thought even before showing up here that God = you = me = everyone else, but does God = you = me = everyone else = electron?

Dan,

I guess all I can say is today is your lucky day (the Best Possible Day?), because you are close to spot on, brother.  When we talk about the essence of God, we have to confess that God is incomprehensible, and so we can never fully circumscribe what God is. However, as His image bearers, we can apprehend what He is through His attributes such as; holiness, sovereignty, infinity, wisdom, goodness, and yes, love!  

It is commonly understood by Christians - both East and West (along with many Jews and Muslims) - that God is also "simple” in His attributes/essence.  That is, that His attributes, though appearing pluriform in nature to us, are all ultimately identical with each other, and also identical with the one, singular essence of the Godhead.  Think of how a beam of light is refracted in to different colors through a prism; this is how the singular essence of God is refracted into diverse attributes through the prism of Creation.  But essentially, they cohere together, like a beam of white light.

So love is ultimately identical to the essence of God, and it is also identical to the other divine attributes; and love is also infinite, as the essence is also infinite.  So God is literally infinite love....  

Now, when it comes to God's infinity, I hold to the classic understanding that infinity is that perfection of God by which He is free from all limitations.  Infinite literally means "not finite," as God cannot be circumscribed by mathematical quantities.  Research into mathematical infinities corroborates this proposition (i.e. Set Theory and the work of George Cantor).  So divine infinity is to be understood as intensive, rather than extensive.  God exists above all temporal limits and all succession of moments, and possesses the whole of His being in one undivided “present.”  He transcends all spatial limitations, but is present at every point of space.  He is more ultra-dimensional, than the UTs…  Catch my drift?

Building some patio furniture for my love, will return to address some of the other points you raised.

8:30

Creation is infinite?  Not in the same way that God is infinite.  Creation has a beginning, but no end, though this present creation will indeed "end" and give way to a higher order called "the kingdom of God."  It has eternally existed in the infinite mind of God as a potential though...

...We may have existed eternally within the mind of God - or within His eternal decree - but that was as pure potentiality.  We did not have actual existence as knowing subjects until that decree was executed through creation, and then carried along through providence.  We were brought into existence in the Best Possible Way, at the Best Possible Time.

I'm thinking on what you said about God being "like a relay team."  Does this not imply some form of the Creator/creature distinction, which you deny?  If we are all God, then there is no divine relay, only divine static.  The relay team analogy seems to imply that God enters into the creation - as a separate object which He Himself relates to - and that He passes through it in some way.  No?

10:30

//God is a person, sports fans, just like us.  This verges on blasphemy, does it not?  I guess that’s why I’m a Jesus freak.   There is something rather freaky about the notion of the Incarnation.//

Here's some solid common ground between us.  Kenosis is perhaps the most profound theological concept. Jesus also opened a "portal" at His ascension, one which is still open.  "And he saith unto him, Verily, verily, I say unto you, Hereafter ye shall see heaven open, and the angels of God ascending and descending upon the Son of man." (John 1:51)

Maybe we should camp here after exhausting coherence?

dan wrote:Stop, hobbit,

I asked you question........

Do you recognize no Source?  

Consciousness is the source of all of creation.

There is no god.


Last post from Me.

hobbit

DZ,

Yes, God = person = you = me = everyone.  

God = electron......?

God = animal.......?

I would suggest that there is some sense in which electrons and animals partake of the Godhead.... of personhood.  

There is a validity to hobbit’s panpsychism..... pantheism..... a validity which might be better expressed by panentheism.

Persons have an individual identity in a way that electrons do not.  It is only we who can individuate electrons.  And something similar can be said for sentient creatures.  Sapience is rather more than sentience on steroids.  Sapience is how we commune/partake in the Transcendental.  Sapience has an infinite potential that electrons and animals do not, pace hobbit.  

There may well be animal totems, which do commune directly with God, as we once supposed that priests and priestesses did.  I will concede even that much to hobbit, bless his heart.  

However, I will hardly concede that murder is equivalent to fly swatting.  If truth be known, it was on this matter that the Princess and I came to blows..... Las Vegas notwithstanding.  

This is exactly why I don’t believe in evolution..... why I don’t believe in analytical science, ie. atomism, or even in atoms, as conceived by conventional science/scientists.


(cont........)

Dan wrote:There may well be animal totems, which do commune directly with God, as we once supposed that priests and priestesses did.  I will concede even that much to hobbit, bless his heart.  

Dan, while you were gone on your cruise, I saw dark haired young girl show up in a lucid dream. Her face was spotted like a leopard or rather, an overlay of a leopard was seen on her face. It wasn't until later that I thought that girl could have been Kashmir. I mean sure, you mentioned that across the threshold into another reality she's a leopard once or twice in the past but on a conscious level it was just me reading the print on the page and nothing more. Then she shows up in a lucid dream? Surrealness abounds at this forum.

BPW = Personhood is ALL there is!

Wheeler's "One electron theory" = One person (we all are on "one person" one global consciousness)

Dr Vernon Neppe's  "The GIMMEL" = provable consciousness field. https://youtu.be/RhV96ShslU4


"Consciousness" & The powers of PSI are AT LEAST 1/2 what the universe is made of  --- when we are still like a lake... our surface can reflect the entire universe...

As long as we still have GOD... this is the best possible world no question!
What God is... is!!!!!

99,

Correction...... I believe that is a cheetah that has Kashmir’s name on it.  For a while, she did not want me to mention cheetahs, so I spoke of leopards and leopardland.


AP,

Yes, there is cosmic consciousness.  That field is not unlike the electric field, but, on which analogy, you and I.... and God are the electrons.  

We produce cosmic consciousness.  Animals abide in our collective consciousness....... not the other way around.  

I am tempted to carry this analogy further...... by saying that animals are more like bosons, while persons are more like fermions.  

Bosons may be identified with their fields in a way that fermions cannot be.  Fermions, relative to bosons, are much more individuated. On this analogy, they have a smidgen of self identity.  Animals obtain their individuation mainly in our reflection.  

Yes, a dog pack has individuals, but only we can identify any given pack, globally.  I understand that I may be splitting hairs.  The main point is that we, persons, are the ontologists, by nature, by our very essence, as transcendental persons.

The bottom line is that I reject, we must reject, Transhumanism in any of its many guises, and especially in the field of phenomenology/ufology/theology.  

Be very careful hereabouts, dd.  I know the lay of this land.  I know where the bodies are buried, and the land mines lay.  I will not hesitate to trip those trip wires.  

I can and will do fisticuffs, at sea and in the Cloud, when it comes to defending the best possible world hypothesis, and the Personalism that is its very essence..... its core.  

We are coming down to the crunch time of Disclosure. Don’t get crunched.


(cont......)

It was a cheetah then. Leopards and Cheetah's look the same to me at this point time as I have never examined either animal to see what their differences are. A spotted lion-like animal right off the bat is ID'd as a leopard at first thought when i see something like that.