home | what's new | other sites | contact | about

  

 

Word Gems 

exploring self-realization, sacred personhood, and full humanity

 

Soulmate, Myself:
Omega Point

The Inferential Life: Part IV 

God, the spirit of God, UC, is not a blind and inanimate force or mere life-principle in nature or the universe. This acknowledged, it is equally true that God interacts with us on both personal and impersonal basis.

 

 
 

return to 'inferential life 4' main-page

 

 

 

Editor’s note: There are several items I’d like to cover in this discussion. First, there’s material from a “K&E dialogue” to be reprinted here as it relates directly. Then I’ll offer some new thoughts.

 

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

 

from http://wordgems.net/book.twinflames.k.e.quantum.html

isomorphic

E. Wholeness and the implicate order are synonyms for Universal Consciousness. With this in mind, I’d like to introduce an idea from another great scientist, Dr. Frederico Faggin. In 1971 he developed the first silicon chip, the microprocessor at the heart of all electronic devices today. In recent years, he's become convinced, along with Bohm and many other physicists, that consciousness, not matter, is foundational to reality.

K. There's a word Dr. Faggin used which, to us, is very suggestive of deep meaning.

E. He said that

"The structure of matter is isomorphic [“equal form”] to the cognitive structure of consciousness, which can reflect itself [in matter]"; our "bodies reflect the accumulated learning of consciousness; matter is the ink with which consciousness writes its own self-knowing."

K. Ellus, explain to everyone in simple language what Dr. Faggin is talking about.

E. This is incredibly interesting. He’s saying that what we see in the physical world is a kind of mirror of what the hidden “implicate order” conceals.

K. This would mean that the “explicate order” is “isomorphic” to the hidden realm of Universal Consciousness.

E. “Isomorphic” suggests a one-to-one relationship. This mirroring is not to be taken literally, in that, there are no rocks, trees, and people in the secret realm of consciousness. Faggin uses the term “cognitive structure.” That’s a great phrase. It means that the physical things we see in the universe are “isomorphic” to the “cognitive structure of consciousness.”

K. If this is correct, and I think it is, it means that the hidden world of Universal Consciousness is not so absolutely unknowable as we might have thought.

E. It means that we can discern some things about “God as singular, pervasive reality.” And what we can know, or at least glimpse, has to do with thought structures.

K. Our thought structures, to some degree, are “isomorphic” to the mind of God.

E. It’s like finding the Rosetta Stone of hidden reality. As we “go within” and learn more about the “true self,” we also gain a glimmering of the nature and mind of God.

K. Bohm was right in line with this. One biographer said:

"Bohm placed more faith in intuition as a way of arriving at solutions than in the more common way of mathematics... He also believed that by paying attention to his own feelings and intuitions, he should be able to arrive at a deeper understanding of the nature of the universe of which he was part."

E. This is great stuff. The scientific method, of course, has its place, but the way of intuition is lauded by the most creative minds.

K. The temperature in the room is rising now. And you know what? – all this sheds much light on a famous term in the Bible which has confused millions down through the ages – “made in the image of God.”

E. What a great example, Kriss! Each of us has been created as “isomorphic” to the image of God. And what is that “image”? It is the thought structures, the cognitive capacities, of the mind of God.

K. Now, here’s where the fun starts. Let’s think about this in practical terms. What does this “isomorphism” really say about God?

E. Here’s one thing. I think we are “persons,” enjoy personhood, because God is a person. I don’t believe we could have this kind of subtle, multi-attributed sentience if God were not the archetype of personhood.

K. Yes, I love that. And I would take that a small step farther to suggest the same for “personality,” a distinctiveness of sentience. I’m not sure what that means for God who seems to be “omni” this-and-that, but maybe it means that each of us is one facet of the diamond and God is the whole sparkling gem.

E. Very good. And I’d like to offer this: Many times, among religious and mystical thinkers, when they speculate on the nature of God, they’re always quick to assert that “God is not a personal God” – which makes me smile, as if they would know this, but they're very confident. Granted, God is not some sort of “sky-god with a long white beard on an immovable marble throne” somewhere, we’re beyond that nonsense, but I don’t see how God could teach us individually, care for us individually, and so many related concepts, if God were not a “personal God.”

K. And, again, you and I and all of us are personally oriented beings. Where did we get this desire for relationship? This kind of high-level sentience, this proclivity toward close affinities, could not have just happened. I think the answer is we’re “isomorphic” to a personal God.

 

Is 'God' a personal God, with personality, who knows us individually, or just a life-principle to be found in all aspects of creation?

This is a question that is debated on the other side. Opinions vary. For example, in the books featuring the channeled direct-voice mediumship of Emily French, we find intellectuals over there discussing this issue.

As I look at all the evidence, I must come down on the side favoring a “personal God who knows us” while also acknowledging that “God as a universal life-principle” is also true. This position of complementarity, not contradiction, reminds us of Niels Bohr’s proposition.

In the “evolution” research report we looked at the mathematical evidence strongly indicating that the complexity-harmony we see woven into the fabric of the universe could not have come to us via randomness.

This suggests that a real, living, Intelligence subsumes it all. Each of us has what we call "personality," a sense of personhood, because - to my way of thinking - we reflect the archetypal source of personality and personhood.

While accepting these statements, we also deny that deity is a "sky-God, somewhere 'up there', with long white beard, sitting on a marble throne". Such image represents fodder of ancient myth, the ignorance of primordial peoples, and has no place in reality. God is "spirit," is consciousness itself, is not a "thing" in the 3-D universe. More than this we have difficulty affirming.

This is a large subject, one that we shall be investigating for a very long time to come, even in Summerland. However, here is one testimony from the other side which sees things as I do:

The following is from Flashes of Light from the Spirit-land, through the mediumship of Mrs. J. H. Conant, by Allen Putnam, Frances Ann Conant, 1872.

Question. ls the Deity a being, or is he a principle pervading all Nature? If the latter, why do you address him as a being, in the invocation?

Answer. That our God is a personal, and also an impersonal God, is equally true. Since the God-power or God-life is everywhere, he, it, or she is of course personified everywhere. I believe in the worship of all that is worthy of worship. If it is the flower, let us worship there. If it is the human soul, let us worship there. If it is a lofty thought, let us worship there. Wherever we see anything, or perceive any state, either of mind or matter, that is worthy of worship, there we should worship.

All Spiritualists, I believe, consider God to be an infinite principle pervading all forms, occupying all space. I believe this. I have seen nothing during my life in the spirit-world to cause me to believe otherwise, I did not believe it when here [on Earth].

But the Book of Life hath been so widely opened to me since death, that I can come to no other conclusion than that God is a principle pervading all forms, and occupying all space. God is in the atmosphere, and is the atmosphere. God is in the sunlight, and is the sunlight. God is the sun and the shadow. He is everything, and is in all places. It is absolutely useless to endeavor to confine God to any particular place or state of being, for could we do that, we should rob God of the God-power. We should at once chain this great eternal principle, this infinite life, to finite space [thus limiting God]. We should [by this confinement of God] at once bring it down within the scope of [limited] human analysis.

And I, for one, am glad we cannot. But we have been so in the habit of addressing this Deity, this Power of Life, as though it were a [mere] man or woman, a [mere human] personality like ourselves, that it is very hard to change our course ... as I before remarked, our God is a personal God, and therefore it is proper that we should thus address him.

Editor’s note: In my opinion, some of the best discussion and reasoning concerning the ontology of God [what God is] will be found in the science books of Dr. Federico Faggin.

God is Universal Consciousness, which provides the underlying essence of matter, of all things in the universe. (See the "quantum" page.) However, I do not see how we can avoid speaking of God as a “personal God.”

The mathematics of probability strongly lead us to Intelligent Design. (See the "evolution" page.) Can there be such a thing as an Intelligent Designer if said entity is not also, in some sense, an Intelligent Person? How could there be intelligence without an intelligent person?

We speak of God’s love. Despite what skeptics view as a heartless and cold universe, there is a mountain of evidence to suggest that the universe was also created for our pleasure, education, developmental needs, and the like. All these are properly viewed as expressions of love. Can there be such a thing as a God of Love if said entity is not also, in some sense, a Loving Person? How could there be love without a loving person?

We might apply this reasoning to a number of attributes we ascribe to God, and when we do, I would say, it is unavoidable not to also judge said entity as a thinking, rational, feeling Person.

 

 

E. As you mention the word “relationship,” I’m reminded of something Dr. Ian McGilchrist said. He’s a psychiatrist, brain-disease researcher, who understands that consciousness is primary in the universe. He feels that “relationship” might actually serve as synonym for Universal Consciousness. This makes sense because, we say God is love, and what does that mean? – God is in relationship with us.

K. And, of course, this sense of relationship as primary importance reaches us as children of God.

E. Now, let’s focus more closely on this aspect, as you said, of “desire for relationship”. We want to understand more about this.

K. “Made in the image” extends to the detail of “male and female.” Again, let’s allow “isomorphism” to instruct us. The mirroring aspect is a “cognitive structure” of Universal Consciousness, not that there is a literal Man and Woman running the universe. But, is some sense, the cognitive capacities of male and female are built into the mind of God. We discussed this at length in a related article.

E. So, Kriss, tell me – what does all this suggest concerning true love and true marriage?

K. I’m with Bohm on this, how he solved problems. I look within. And when I do, I see an overriding desire to share my life with one particular other. These feelings of union, of oneness, of harmony, extend well beyond instinctual leanings toward perpetuating the species. That’s not it.

E. Then what?

K. Bohm was on to it. He saw the fundamental element of all existence, of reality itself, as a tendency toward unity, a coming together, a “wholeness.” And two lovers, made for each other, mirror, within their deepest hearts and being, this essential nature of the universe – which is God’s mind.

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

 

There are two principles from A Course In Miracles to help us in with this topic. The following are quotations from "the Course."

from http://wordgems.net/course.revelation.html

 

Revelation is intensely personal.

Revelation [is] the original form of communication between God and his creations.

Revelation unites you directly with God.

God created every mind by communicating His Mind to it, thus establishing it forever as a channel for the reception of His Mind and Will. Since only beings of a like order can truly communicate, His creations naturally communicate with Him and like Him. This communication is perfectly abstract [see the "Divine Abstraction"]... God has kept your Kingdom for you, but He cannot share His joy with you until you know it with your whole mind. Revelation is not enough, because it is only communication from God. God does not need revelation returned to Him, which would clearly be impossible, but He does want it brought to others. This cannot be done with the actual revelation; its content cannot be expressed because it is intensely personal to the mind that receives it. It can, however, be returned by that mind to other minds, through the attitudes the knowledge from the revelation brings.

 

God, UC, deals with us, at times, in an “intensely personal” manner. Circumstances will arise, certain seemingly fortuitous and serendipitous events, tiny details, that would have no meaning to an outside observer, but, for the recipient, will be absolutely astonishing! – things that could never happen by chance as the odds would be trillions to one! But these do happen, and not so infrequently, somewhat regularly, when we begin to open our minds to the influence of teaching-Spirit.

For these “extremely lucky” events to occur, we infer some Guiding Hand in our lives. And since the message will be so “intensely personal,” this means that the Guidance is looking after us in an intensely personal manner.

Also note, from the Course, "only beings of a like order can truly communicate." We communicate with God because we are like God! - this is almost common sense; and the flip-side is, God, in many respects, is like us! It's why we're called "children of God."

But “the Course” also speaks of “the Divine Abstraction.”

from http://wordgems.net/course.div.abst.html

 

Divine Abstraction

Editor's note: The dictionary definition of abstraction: "The quality of dealing with ideas rather than events; the process of considering something independently of its associations, attributes, or concrete accompaniments."

Since only beings of a like order can truly communicate [Editor's note: see "prayer"], His creations naturally communicate with Him and like Him. This communication is perfectly abstract, since its quality is universal in application and not subject to any judgment, any exception or alteration... God, Who encompasses all being, created beings who have everything individually, but who want to share it to increase their joy. Nothing real can be increased except by sharing. That is why God created you. Divine Abstraction takes joy in sharing. That is what creation means. "How," "what," and "to whom" are irrelevant, because real creation gives everything, since it can create only like itself. Remember that in the Kingdom there is no difference between having and being... In the state of being, the mind gives everything always.

Editor’s note: A cursory reading will not reveal the meaning of “Divine Abstraction,” but let’s look at this carefully. Generally speaking, God does not communicate with particular words – however, we should not generalize too much as some, in fact, might hear actual words, but this particularization, while very rare, could happen and, if it does, will occur via God’s agents, the Spirit Guides; nevertheless, as a rule – God communicates with us in an abstract way, “independently of its associations, attributes, or concrete accompaniments." What does this mean? A clue for us is that the “Divine Abstraction” is offered within the discussion’s context of “being” and “joy.” I think the meaning here is that when God communicates we might be filled with a sense of overriding joy, a feeling of purpose, a perception of the rightness of one’s direction in life. The “how, what, and to whom are irrelevant” to the communication, not because these are unimportant but that the details are left us, as God does not want to violate our free will, nor the educative lesson as we make our own decisions. Notice, too, that "in the state of being, the [divine] mind gives everything always." And it is this sense of joyful altruistic intent that God communicates to us, and when we find ourselves in receipt of it, we can know that God has "spoken" to us.

[Physical] existence ... is specific in how, what, and with whom... [however,] being is completely without these distinctions. It is a state in which the mind is in communication with everything that is real. To whatever extent you permit this state to be curtailed, you are limiting your sense of your own reality... This [sense of being] is your reality... It is your real home, your real temple, and your real Self.

Editor's note: In this passage, too, we receive further confirmation that “Divine Abstraction” constitutes an unbounded perception of "being" and joy. Notice how “being” is contrasted with “existence,” with the latter now defined in terms of what being is not: “how, what, and with whom.” We derive our essential being from God’s own being, and we share this with all of God’s creation; in this shared sense of being, of universal affinity, we experience what is commonly known as “love”; however, there is one with whom the unitive feeling is most pronounced. See “The Wedding Song” for much discussion on love as connectedness.

Editor’s note: There may be those, still in this world, with powers of expanded mind, so extensive, that a certain far-flung awareness of items in the universe may exist right now. Consider the advanced shamans of the South American Kogi people. They know things that escape the rest of us. See the inset-box.

 

As a man [Jesus] and also one of God’s creations, my right-thinking, which came from the Holy Spirit, or the Universal Inspiration, taught me first and foremost that this Inspiration is for all. I could not have It myself without knowing this. The “word” know is proper in this context because the Holy Spirit is so close to knowledge that He calls it forth; or better, allows it to come. I have spoken before of the higher or “true” perception, which is so near the truth that God Himself can flow across the little gap. Knowledge is always ready to flow everywhere, but it cannot oppose [the flowing]. Therefore, you can obstruct it, although you can never lose it…

The Holy Spirit is the Mind of the Atonement. He represents a state of mind close enough to One-mindedness that transfer to it is at last possible. Perception is not knowledge but it can be transferred to knowledge, or cross over into it. It might even be more helpful to use the literal meaning of transferred or “carried over,” since the last step is taken by God. The Holy Spirit, the shared Inspiration of all the Sonship, induces a kind of perception in which many elements [of the perception] are like those in the Kingdom of Heaven itself:

First, its universality is perfectly clear [to those imbued with the Universal Inspiration], and no one who attains it could believe for one instant that sharing it involves anything but gain.

Second, it [that is, the perception induced by the Holy Spirit] is incapable of attack and is therefore truly open. This means that although it [the perception] does not engender knowledge, it does not obstruct it in any way.

Finally, it points the way beyond the healing [of oneself] that it brings, and leads the mind beyond its own integration toward the paths of creation. It is at this point that sufficient quantitative change occurs to produce a real qualitative shift.

Editor’s note: This is an incredibly important passage from the Course. We are offered a few synonyms for the “Divine Abstraction” – the Holy Spirit, the Universal Inspiration, the true perception, the Mind of the Atonement. None of these imparts knowledge, as such – no details or facts – but, by way of intuitive cognition, leads the mind to an ultra-readiness to receive the knowledge of God. In this state of inspiration, knowledge is very close, and we intuit it easily. God takes a hand in this realization as the “last step”; “last" because we ourselves first have to be willing. This “last step” is interesting. The question has been raised, if we are held captive by the ego, a condition in which “we know not what we do,” how does one break out of that? The answer appears to be a combination of our own willingness to end personal suffering plus an element of gift from God.

Special note: The phrase "a real qualitative shift" was discussed on the page devoted to "healing," but it's so significant that it deserves further comment. It's part of the context of the "Divine Abstraction" and notice how it's related: When we allow ourselves to be influenced by the Holy Spirit, the Universal Inspiration, we begin to find healing for our minds, which had been led by the ego. The nature of this rescue becomes an other-centeredness, a service-mindedness. This should not be surprising as God's mind is just that way. However, there's an unexpected benefit to us. As we begin to think more about what we can do for others, "a real qualitative shift" occurs in our level of maturity and consciousness. We're the big winners when we devote ourselves to charitable works. We become more godlike, our minds become transformed, which takes us steps closer to fulfilling our destiny to emulate Mother-Father God.

 

 

summary statement:

The “Divine Abstraction” refers to a quality of mind – of God and those aligned with God. It is, or can be, a kind of “steady state” mind focused on joy, love, peace, and all manner of virtue. It is referred to as an “abstraction” because it is undefined and unlabled. This means that its positive-mindedness is not linked to any particular circumstance or element of knowledge, nor is it sent away when troublesome things happen to us.

Editor’s note: This "undefined" element of joy reminds us of, and is closely associated with, Elizabeth Barrett's phrase "not for a reason" in reference to romantic love. See her works quoted on the homepage.

In other words, the "Divine Abstraction" is, or can be, an elevated state of mind for us even when things seem to be going wrong, even when the facts of our lives do not seem to support positiveness; in other words, we can have joy even when we're not happy.

Happiness is the result of favorable “happenings,” something we can't control, but the "Divine Abstraction," on the deeper soul-level, naturally issues with undefined joy, despite the vicissitudes of circumstance at the surface of life. If we don't feel the joy, it's because we've allowed the ego to block it.

Editor’s note: In the Gospel of John, chapter four, Jesus speaks of this naturalness of the mind of God by comparing it to an artesian spring with endless water-flow. It automatically and naturally bubbles up to the surface from the depths, without any effort on our part.

Fundamentally, it is a joy simply of being alive, of enjoying one's own existence; and then it becomes a desire to help others to experience the same.

See the definition-notes at "Revelation" indicating that this spirit of joy, offering evidence of our linkage to the "Divine Abstraction," more than our words, most effectively influences others and leads them to God.

summary statement II:

Allow me to try one more time to make this clearer. Why should there be a “Divine Abstraction”? Why the indefiniteness? If the Holy Spirit directed us, “laid down the law,” in a concrete way, then we’d be back to the same iron-fisted approach that Religion has used to enslave people for thousands of years - and with zero success in terms of changing hearts and minds. If the Holy Spirit spoke to us in terms of inflexible rules and regulations, connecting all the dots for us, all of us would again be reduced to child-mentalities, taking orders, trying to live by someone else’s script. This is not how to develop the human mind and is not what God wants. God supplies the undefined sense of joy, love, and peace – the “Divine Abstraction” – and we, as co-creators with God, are assigned the task of implementing joy, love, and peace in particular situations. That's the deal.

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

final note for the discussion on this page

In “the Course” we see two broad principles concerning how God deals with us: one is “intensely personal”, micro-managing tiny details of our lives, while the other deals in “abstract”, general sentiments.

From this, and from the quoted discussion from “K&E”, we infer that God is both personal and impersonal deity in our lives.

 

 

 

Editor's last word: