Sight is a great thang
Sight is the door to knowing
We see the world and ourselves and we wonder
And that generates scientific pursuit
Which is fancy smart methodical formulaic seeing basically
Hopefully that string of words accounts for the observation then hypothesis then experimentation then observation then conclusion then repeat
I might’ve missed a step or two
But that’s what I mean by fancy seeing
But we can’t see (nor fancy see) everything
Makes you question the role of proper deduction in human knowing
Are there not universals which man could not conceive nor grasp?
What if, by ‘God’, we mean, ‘that process by which material existence emerged from infinitely original annihilation independent of a pre-existing natural law or any sort of axiomatic precedent for doing so’?
That’s not something which can be observable
We haven’t seen it happen
We won’t see it happen
Because it requires a state of nothingness
And obviously we are not void
We are something
And we are conscious
Which are possibly not the same thing
The emergence and subsequent existence of the natural law necessary for the existence of material being requires an original consciousness,
provided that all knowledge is not achieved exclusively through induction,
provided that cause and effect is indeed a universal law as opposed to being a sub-phenomenon of a greater ontological category – a category which might contain as another sub-category emergence without cause,
In which case logic itself would be an inductive discipline.
So a ‘thing’ implies material or abstract being
And consciousness is that which is estranged from both of those modes of being on account of its rational awareness of itself as well as its rational awareness of the existence of those modes outside itself
(I’ll talk about consciousness sometime – I’m not sure if rational awareness is right)
So, in the sense that consciousness refers to a prospective or split being,
It is an abstract thing
But it is uniquely unique…
That shouldn’t make sense – it doesn’t, technically – but it does!
And there lie some big implications in the possible discrepancy between the abstract and consciousness
I think it is the same difference between a law and a mind
I think those two (A & C) could describe the non-material parts of God
And it remains that the Soul is, of all non-material components, composed of those parts distinguishable from axiomatic principle
For the ‘principle’ category of the abstract precedes, describes and governs material being and guides/teaches other (conscious?) being
But that other category of the abstract, the category of the Soul,
is that which sees being.