Seeing the Whole Picture

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

I know


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.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s