The need - panentheism – all in the whole – Without the ‘soul’ transmigrating the whole
cannot become whole unto itself.

The interactive dynamics – symbiosis – without the symbiosis an element of the whole takes on a function of unnecessary redundancy.

The point: The concept of ‘transmigration of the soul’ now becomes a reasonable issue for both philosophy/reason and religion/faith and thus two out of the three means we have of developing perceptions – religion/faith, and philosophy/reason - now support the concept of ‘transmigration of souls’ and as such the individual now finds a majority of our perceptual tools concur with Pythagoras’ intuitive sense that an individual’s life has meaning for if life had no meaning there would be no ‘need’ for the ‘transmigration of souls’.

10. Pythagoras (570-495 B.C.) – Q2:

What can we know?

… But Pythagoras’ most influential contribution, both for philosophy and for science,
was his doctrine that ‘all things are numbers,’ meaning that the ‘essences’ and ‘structures’ can be determined by finding the numerical relations contained in them.

… He concluded that the aim of human life was to live in harmony with this natural order.

S: ‘… to live in harmony with this natural order.’ And what is this ‘natural order’? Abstractual existence is the natural order. The concepts of numbers are abstractual. The concept of the perceptual existence of individual numbers, individually unique numbers, individually unique knowing, individually unique… is abstractual.

The physicality is but temporary and exists only as long as time and space exist. Time and space in turn are innate characteristics of matter and energy as demonstrated through Einstein’s equations: Energy equals the product of mass and the quotient distance squared over time squared (velocity of light squared). The details of such a relationship, the relationship between the physical and the square of the abstractual are provided in depth within Tractate 8: The Error of Einstein, Resolving the Problem of Imaginary Numbers.

The philosophical model of ‘being’ being ‘Being’ demonstrates the validity of ‘transmigration of the soul’ and now we see through Einstein’s equations that the theories of science demonstrate the validity regarding a direct relationship existing between physical existence and abstractual existence.

As we assemble the pieces of knowledge past philosophers had developed, our picture regarding the nature of reality is beginning to take a definite form. Our learning curve is pointing toward an understanding that reality is not just the physical universe. Our learning curve is indicating that we can ‘know’ and study both realities, the reality of the physical and the reality of the abstractual.

We have seen throughout this work that paradoxical puzzles can often be resolved if the concept regarding the simultaneous existence of two realities, the reality of the physical and the reality of the abstractual, is taken literally regarding the composition of the whole of reality.

Science has demonstrated there is a direct relationship that exists between the physical and the abstractual. As such if the abstractual does not exist then Einstein’s equations of relativity are invalid. Likewise if the physical does not exist then Einstein’s equations of relativity are invalid. In short, what we are learning scientifically regarding our physical reality is that there is a direct correlation between the physical world and the abstractual world and if either the physical or the abstractual do not exist then all our scientific suppositions regarding reality are false.

In short we can know not only the physical but we can know the abstractual even though we cannot observe the abstractual through the same means we observe the physical. It should be of no surprise that observing the abstractual takes a different approach than does observing the physical since one reality is physical in nature and the other is nonphysical in nature.

The point: We are physical in nature and as such we can know the physical, but we are also abstractual in nature and as such we can know the abstractual and in fact have begun to do both without being consciously aware of just how far we have come in understanding the nature the physical and the abstract both in terms of their location relative to the w
hole and their function to the whole.

11. Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) – Q1:

Do we exist and why?

Aristotle, a contemporary of Plato, soon raised objections to the theory of Ideas put forward by Plato. Aristotle declared that it is unnecessary to assume that there is a separate realm of perfect Ideas. He rejected Plato’s claim that we are but imperfect copies of perfect Ideas.

S: Aristotle may have been correct regarding the need for a location of ‘perfect ideas’ such as a perfect circle and a ‘perfect’ square but Aristotle’s perception of perfection was skewed. Any circle is perfect. A circle drawn within reality may not be ‘perfect’ by geometric definition but it is perfect in terms of its own uniqueness. No example of a circle can be drawn perfectly in terms of being a ‘perfect’ circle. The only duplication of itself comes in the form of the idea/definition of perfection itself.

Likewise no individual can be identically reproduced as itself. The concept of what is meant by a ‘perfect’ individual may be definable to a greater power but the reproduction of such an example is not possible as a physical entity. The physical is the arena of chaos wherein a pattern of complexity emerges. The discussion regarding the connection between chaos, complexity, and metaphysics is touched upon in the Postscript following this section: Conclusion: The Peer Review.

Regarding the necessity for a separate realm of perfect ideas, Aristotle overlooked the value of examining the potentiality regarding the literal existence of just such a region. This three-volume set clearly demonstrates the advantages of examining just such an idea. The simultaneous existence of an abstractual region existing within which infinite time and space are located in a limited manner (See Volume 1, Tractate 2: The Error of Aristotle, Resolving the Problem of Cartesianism,) provides a means by which the great paradoxes of philosophy can be resolved. Neither the Cartesian model nor the non-Cartesian model offers such solutions. In fact both the Cartesian and the non-Cartesian systems when taken separately, do nothing but confuse the great debate regarding the great philosophical paradoxes that face us as a specie.

The confusion generated by the either/or debate, as opposed to the ‘and’ solution this work provides, generates great havoc within the social debates regarding moral and ethical behavior we as individuals and we as a specie face on a daily basis.

The very concept of existence and the meaning for such a state of being is thrown into disarray by our accepting Aristotle’s conclusion ‘… that it is unnecessary to assume that there is a separate realm of perfect Ideas.

This is not to say Aristotle was ‘wrong’ in his perception that the physical existed but it does say that unless the physical provides a means of resolving the philosophical, religious, scientific, ethical, moral, social, individual, … dilemmas and paradoxes we face day by day, week by week, year by year, century by century, then we should seriously consider reevaluating our philosophical, scientific, and religious stance regarding the validity of metaphysics and begin to give this subject area another serious look.

The point: Metaphysics is the study of what lies ‘beyond the physical.’ Aristotle himself developed the term. The concept of a separate region existing for perfect ideas, perfect beings (defined as simply completion of being), provides the means by which we can resolve many academic and social dilemmas and as such the idea deserves a serious consideration as to its validity and vitality as opposed to our present action of tolerating its presently perceived annoying existence.

11. Aristotle (384-322 B.C.) – Q2:

Do we exist and why?

Aristotle recognized that all living things develop from an imperfect state to a more perfected state. A seed grows into a plant; a baby grows into an adult.

S: The first question to emerge from Aristotle’s intuitive sense of an ‘imperfect state’ is: What is meant by a ‘prefect’ state? In terms of the new metaphysical perception of ‘being’ being ‘Being’, the perfect state is the completion of existence being what it is, complete. For an abstractual entity developing through experiencing the physical, the perfect state is reached when the entity of abstractual formation is no longer capable of experiencing the physical, no longer capable of using the physical to develop itself. The point of completion is not defined as having reached the level of ‘attainment’ others think such an entity should take nor is completion having reached the level of attainment others define as a goal for that entity. The entity reaches a state of completion when it no longer continues to develop its unique pattern of complexity/experiencing/affecting....

For a Giant Sequoia seedling the point of completion may be two days after germination of a or thirty seven hundred years after germination moves to becoming an ancient Giant Sequoia Tree.

Aristotle may have rejected the concept of a region existing solely for the ‘perfect’ state of being as we previously perceived ‘perfection’ to be, but Aristotle understood the concept of a region existing ‘beyond’ the physical well enough to name such a region ‘metaphysics’.

Without existence being timeless in nature, existence does not exist. An existence defined by time, an existence limited by time, an existence snuffed out when time ends, is no existence at all. An existence limited by time will eventually end for by definition time has a beginning and an end for time is defined by the very nature of matter and energy themselves as Einstein’s equations so eloquently point out to us. Time, as with matter, energy and space, is an element of the Cartesian model – the ‘beginning/end’ model – the ‘cause and effect’ model.

What then of the seedling and the baby to which Aristotle referred? The seedling and the baby are complete entities when their journey, when their pattern of complexity has ended, has terminated. Patterns of complexity, as we presently understand the concept of complexity, never end rather the pattern of complexity become terminated and it is the termination not the potential continuation of the pattern which finalizes/’completes’ the pattern.

The seedling therefore becomes a complete entity/element of individuality with the termination of its pattern formation be it one hour into its development or five years into its development. Likewise the baby becomes a complete entity/element of individuality with the termination of its pattern formation be it one hour into its development or 100 years into its development.

The point: It must be noted at this point in the discourse that the perceived instant of human origination, virgin formation, is, as is the case of all entities of individuality, dependent upon one’s definition of a human’s function within the whole of its environment. As far as we are able to determine a rock exists as a function of the physical and thus begins to emerge from virgin-ness into actively being at the moment of its formation. If the whole of the human individual is only physical in nature than the same can be said of a fetus and thus one can rationally define the virgin-ness as occurring at either conception or at birth. This conflict, life begins at conception or life begins at birth, is in actuality a debate regarding the moment when the pattern of complexity begins. This discussion initiates one of the greatest social debates of our time. If on the other hand the whole of a person’s environment is abstractual then the point of the brain wave function, which in turn defines the point of awareness, defines the point of virgin-ness. As such the point of virgin-ness occurs approximately in the second trimester of fetal development. Such a development has no other conflicting point of abstractual origination which in turn leads to a consensus of opinion and an end to the of one of the greatest social debates of our time. .

12. Hellenistic and Roman Philosophies - Q1:

What is morality?

Stoicism
… It stressed the importance of endurance and self-control. The Stoics taught that pleasure and pain were of no importance to a person’s happiness. The possession of virtue, and not worldly wealth or power, was of prime importance. The Stoics also believed in divine providence.

S: If reality follows the model of Cartesianism/cause and effect/physicality as demonstrated by the diagram:

Then the stoics are wrong for the physical then becomes the ultimate environment within which our knowing exists and as such physical sensations of pleasure, pain, wealth, power become the ultimate expression of ‘happiness’.

There is little logic to support the concept that the physical does not exist. As such if we ignore the concept that the physical is an illusion and move instead to the concept introduced by this work, the concept of two separate locations of existence, the Cartesian within the non-Cartesian, then the ultimate region of reality becomes the abstract:

The illustrated model demonstrates that the stoics are ultimately correct. Within the model, the abstract becomes the ultimate environment within which our knowing exists and as such physical sensations of pleasure, pain, wealth, power … are secondary expressions of ‘happiness’ and altruistic pursuits are the primary expression of ‘happiness’ since abstractual existence is the ultimate form of existence.


The Point: The in-depth examination of reality, the attempt to model reality as science models the atom, is no task for society or the individual to take lightly. The metaphysical model we create becomes our fundamental bases for understanding reality, which in turn becomes the very foundation upon which all our actions become rationalized.

12. Hellenistic and Roman Philosophies – Q2:

What can we know?

Epicureanism
… They held that pleasure was the very essence of a happy life, and that the gods were indifferent to human being. … Epicurus felt it was important to look upon the gods as perfect beings, in order that men could also approach perfection.

S: The issue of the gods’ indifference to human beings implies that if the gods do not ‘assist us’ then they are indifferent to us. Metaphysics would say the implication is not necessarily the case. The metaphysical issue is not ‘can’ the gods overrule the laws of physics/natural occurrence but would the gods logically do so.

If the universe were created from of the realm of nothingness through the laws of symmetry (See Volume II, Tractate 10: The Error of Heidegger) then the act of initiating creation must have a purpose. But what possible purpose could the act of initiating creation have and is it even possible for a limited creature as ourselves to understand such a purpose? The answer to the first part of the question is specifically addressed in Volume I, Tractate 5 The Error of Leibniz, Resolving the Problem of Theodicy, and the answer to the second part of the question is addressed in Volume III, Tractate 16: Introducing the Problem of Being Right and Tractate 17: Introducing the Problem of the End. The answer to two questions can, however, be briefly stated as: We not only have the ability to understand the purpose for the need to ‘create’ a universe but this work actually proposes a specific purpose for creation.

What possible connection is there between the last few statements and the concept that there is a difference between the gods being able to interfere with the laws of creation and their willingness to do so?

If the gods/God created the universe with the intent that the physical aspect of the physical follows the physical laws established to govern the very region of physicality itself, then why would the gods/God interfere with the very laws they established in the first place? Wouldn’t the act of gods/God interfering with the laws governing the region of the physical simply be a conscious effort upon a knowing creator to supercede its own purpose creating a universe? The act of interfering with its own creation would therefore appear to be an irrational act performed by a defined rational source/being

What then of ‘free will’, isn’t free will an interference of an entity of creation to overrule the laws of the physical universe? Any action occurring as a reaction to nature or for that matter any action occurring as an attempt to supercede the acts of nature only succeed if they follow some law of the universe be it a law we understand or be it a law of which we presently have no comprehension.

Can the gods/God supercede the laws of the physical? The answer to this question is not a subject of metaphysics but rather is subject of ontology.

The point: If we have the ability to ask the question that in itself means we have the ability to both understand and develop the answer. Granted the answer may not be immediately perceivable but given time we as a specie have the ability to understand the whole of our reality which in turn leads to understanding the contents of the immediate environment within which we find ourselves (the physical) but leads us to understand/know the purpose of said contents and understanding/knowing our purpose for existing.

If we can ask the question we can eventually come to a scientific, religious, and philosophical consensus regarding the answer to the question we ask. This work develops a specific model that provides extensive in-depth answers to the twelve fundamental questions humanity has attempted to answer since the advent of philosophy.

13. The Skeptics – Q1:

What can we know?

Pyrrho of Elis (365-270 B.C.) founded the school of Skepticism. The main doctrine of this philosophy was that we could never know anything with certainty.

S: Because we are physical in nature, we can know the physical. Because we are abstractual in nature, we can know the abstract. We are capable of knowing both the physical and the abstract. Because we exist, we can know of existence. Because we pass out of the physical, leave the physical, become nothing within the physical, we can know of ‘nothingness’ itself.

We cannot only ‘know of’ but we can understand the physical, the abstract, and nothingness. It may take time for us to learn of such ‘things’ but we can, nevertheless, know them.

We cannot, however, know of that which we are not ‘a part’. Such a statement would imply we are ‘a part of’ abstraction, ‘a part of’ the physical, and ‘a part of’ nothingness. It is only symbiotic panentheism, ‘being’ being ‘Being’ which fully details the rational of our being ‘a part of’ the physical, abstraction, and nothingness simultaneously.

It was Descartes who stated: ‘I think therefore I am.’ But one cannot think without awareness. Knowing (verb) is the process of being aware. If one exists because one is aware/knowing then one must be aware/knowing of some ‘thing’ or ‘concept’. Without some ‘thing’ or ‘concept’ of which one can be knowing/aware there is no ‘knowing’ (noun).

What can we know? We can know and understand the passive state of existence - being. We can know and understand the active state of existence – being (italicized). We can know and understand the individual, an element of the whole of knowing ‘being’ (in quotes). And we can ‘know of’ and understand ‘the concept of’ the whole of knowing – ‘Being’ (in quotes). This is not to say we can know all elements of knowing, nor does it suggest we are capable of being the sum of all knowing itself, for to be the sum of all knowing is to be the whole which in turn would mean we are no longer ‘a’ sub-element of the whole.

Metaphysically we transform the discussion regarding ‘knowing’ into a discussion regarding existence or the state of being. The transformation becomes a discussion regarding four forms of being: being – the passive state of existence, being – the active state of existence, ‘being’ – multiplicity/individuality of existence, and ‘Being’ – singularity/the whole of existence. The discussion then moves towards understanding the being of ‘being’ being ‘Being.’

What then of the being of ‘Being’ being ‘being’? What then of the whole? What of ‘Knowing’ knowing ‘knowing’? The question regarding what the whole of Knowing knows is not the question put forward by the Skeptics. The question put forward by the Skeptics was: What can we, you and I, know? The question directs itself to each individual’s very existence and places into question the very significance of the individual, raises the question: Does the individual have a purpose for existing.

The point: The model illustrated within this work suggests: We know of the physical for we exist ‘inside’ a physical reality, which is a part of the model. We know of the abstract for we exist ‘inside’ the physical, which in turn is ‘inside’ the abstract. We know of nothing for ‘nothingness’ exists as a part of the model.

We know nothing less and nothing more than this for as yet we have no concept of what lies ‘beyond’ the abstract within which the physical and nothingness lie.

13. The Skeptics – Q2:

What is existence?

… We cannot even trust our own senses.

S: The Skeptics position that ‘we cannot even trust our own senses’ is perceived to be a true statement because we presently think in terms of the ‘either/or’ scenario:

Either reality is physical in nature or reality is abstractual in nature.

Presently we believe: If reality is physical in nature, than abstractual concepts, thoughts, awareness of experiences, perceptions, knowing, etc. are not real. On the other hand, we also believe that if reality is abstractual/composed of ideas, thoughts, awareness of experiences, perceptions, knowing, etc. then the physical is not real. In short we have fallen into the trap of thinking the only option is to choose ‘one or the other’ form of reality. This either/or trap is what creates philosophical paradoxes – paradoxes of reason, scientific paradoxes – paradoxes of observation, and religious paradoxes – paradoxes of faith.

This work introduces a third option. The third option substitutes the term ‘and’ for the ‘either/or’ conjunction. Symbiotic panentheism folds into its model all forms of being/existence:

being – the passive state of existence - verb: passive

being – the active state of existence - verb: action

‘being’ – multiplicity/individuality of existence - noun: elements of

‘Being’ – singularity/the whole of existence. - noun: the ‘universal set’

The result of substituting the ‘and’ conjunction for the ‘either/or’ conjunction is that the ‘and’ model, symbiotic panentheism, embraces all the arguments of those advocating reality being physical in nature and all the arguments of those advocating reality being abstractual in nature. Symbiotic panentheism provides no alternative ‘location’ for those rebutting the arguments. In other words, If those rebutting symbiotic panentheism state there is no such existence as the physical, nothingness, or the abstract (all of which have a ‘location’ of existence and a function for existing within the model of symbiotic panentheism) then the question put to them becomes: What is your explanation? What is the model you suggest supports your position?

If the response from the skeptics is that: I have no model of reality to present. Then their argument becomes mute for they have nothing to offer which supports their position. Those arguing the model of symbiotic panentheism, on the other hand, have an overwhelming supply of arguments to draw upon. Not only do the advocates of ‘being’ being ‘Being’ have an overwhelming supply of arguments to draw upon but the arguments emerge from all three of our means of developing perception regarding what reality is: perceptions developed through observation/science, perceptions developed through faith/religion, and perceptions developed through reason/philosophy.

The point: Existence begins in the passive form of: a state of being, moves to the active form of being, and it is the knowing (noun) of existence both in the passive state and the active state that makes knowing a noun of multiplicity – ‘being’ and makes the total/summation/whole of what is known the noun of singularity - ‘Being’. In short it is only the metaphysical system introduced within this work, the being of ‘being’ being ‘Being,’ that simultaneously resolves the paradoxes of philosophy and society. It is only the model of ‘being’ being ‘Being being, symbiotic panentheism which absorbs all possible locations of reality, the physical, the abstract, and nothingness, into itself. It is only symbiotic panentheism, which demonstrates that all three locations play a critical role in reality that only they as a unique realm of existence can fulfill.

14. Medieval Philosophy – Q1:

What is our function within society?

… During the medieval period, western thinkers sought to create a synthesis between religion and philosophy. ... In every instance, the goal was to create a philosophical foundation for religious thought.

S: The attempt to lay a foundation of reason beneath religion was no small task. On the other hand, the need for such a foundation was no insignificant matter. Religion had an intuitive sense that eventually reason/philosophy and science/observation would compete with faith/religion for the minds of the individual, for the commitment of the individual, and for the loyalty of the individual.

It was intuitively obvious that science/observation would be the last of the three perceptual tools, faith – reason – observation, which would be capable of providing overwhelming support to religions. The ability to ‘observe/measure’ abstractual concepts would be a long time coming. So it was that religions looked to reason/philosophy to be the next means by which the individual could justify its intuitive sense that physical existence was not the ultimate region of existence. So it was that religions looked to reason/philosophy to be the next means to substantiate altruism, as opposed to materialism, as being the ultimate goal of life.

The human specie appears to have an innate sense that altruism is the epitome of human behavior. It is faith represented most prominently by religion that supports such a concept. It was obvious to religious groups during the Medieval Period that faith alone could not remain the most prevalent perceptual tool forever. It was beginning to become obvious that observation/science would become the more convincing of the three perceptual tools. It was also intuitively obvious that it would be a long time before science, through observation, could substantiate a region of non-physical/abstractual existence.

Faith/religion had little choice then but to look to reason/philosophy to reinforce its very belief in the existence of an abstractual realm.

Try as it may, philosophy was unable to develop the rationale to support faith/religion in its most fundamental principle: There is an alternative form of existence to the physical. There is a non-physical form of existence, an abstractual existence. This work overcomes philosophy’s inability to provide the rationale regarding an existence of a specific ‘location’ for all abstractual existence.

This work does what philosophy was unable do. This work moves beyond the self-imposed paradox: Either reality is physical in nature or reality is non-physical/abstractual in nature.

This work resolves the paradox, which the ‘either/or’ scenario generates. Philosophy could not move beyond the ‘either/or’ scenario and as such philosophy became mired in the quagmire of linguistics.

The obvious solution to the paradox, which in turn would fully support faith’s/religion’s fundamental intuitive principle regarding the location of an abstractual existence, is to replace the ‘either/or’ scenario with an ‘and’ scenario: The physical ‘and’ the abstractual exist. Reality contains a physical region within its abstractual realm.

The point: The solution to philosophy’s paradox is simple, obvious, and rational once one identifies the large number of potential models which could emerge from such a perception (See Volume III, Tractate 13: Introducing the Problem of Metaphysical Systems 7 and 9.).

14. Medieval Philosophy – Q2:

Do we possess free will or are our actions determined?

… Their goal was to use philosophy as a means of giving a rational interpretation of Christian faith.

S: It was more than just Christian faith, which sought a rational interpretation. All forms of religion and all forms of religious arguments sought a rational interpretation to support their intuitive positions.

Cartesianism existing within non-Cartesianism, ‘being’ being ‘Being’, symbiotic panentheism illustrates a perception of reality, which accomplishes the feat. Symbiotic panentheism lays a foundation of rational interpretation beneath not only Christianity but beneath all religions be they theistic, atheistic, scientific, or mathematical in nature. The model of symbiotic panentheism is addressed in detail within this work as well as the book, Stepping Up To The Creator, Daniel J. Shepard, Proctor Publications, 1998. The work can be accessed and downloaded free of all fees in its entirety in the library section of the web site: www.panentheism.com.

What, however, of the Medieval Philosophers? How does symbiotic panentheism specifically address the issue regarding the reconciliation of reason/philosophy and Christianity?

The rationality goes as follows: If a creator of a region as complex as the universe did in fact create the universe then the creator may have placed itself in a dilemma. If the universe had the function of allowing ‘newness’ to germinate uninhibited then the creator of the universe would have had a tremendous incentive not to interfere with the very ‘newness’ the universe was in fact generating. Likewise if part of the ‘newness’ being created was being generated through strange attractors governed by the laws of free will, then the patterns of ‘newness’, complexity, they were developing (see Volume III, Postscript: Chaos, Complexity, and Metaphysics) would eventually became a part of the whole of Passive Complexity – the whole of abstraction (see Postscript) and if such developments generated though strange attractors (individual humans and others) governed by the laws of free will were generating an undue proportion of harmful effects upon the whole of abstraction within which individuality of all forms eventually became a part, then the creator might feel an obligation to reverse such a trend. The means to do so might very well be to introduce a piece of itself, ‘the son’, into the mix of physicality in order to plant a seed, to bring into creation an idea. The idea, the seed, may have been the concept: love unconditionally. This seed of ‘love’, this seed of behaviorally expectation would have been intended to change the directional formation of the whole itself within which each and every individual would find themselves eventually immersed. The difference between a general strange attractor governed by the law of free will and a strange attractor sent for a specific reason is that the general strange attractor begins at the point of virgin-ness and evolves from the point of virgin-ness/zero-ness/lack of awareness, whereas the strange attractor sent with a message is sent knowingly by the ‘sender/creator’ and with the consent of the strange attractor of knowing. The sacrifice is great and the consent on the part of both parties, the sender and the sendee would have been extraordinary to say the least. Such speculation would be ontological in nature and not metaphysical in nature. As such the argument is not the issue of this work.

The point: The objective of using philosophy as a tool to provide a rational interpretation of Christian faith, all faiths, becomes possible with the model of symbiotic panentheism, ‘being’ being ‘Being’. Such an objective may not have been possible before the advent of symbiotic panentheism since we did not know then what we now know regarding our physical universe. It can now be demonstrated, through model building, that it is possible to lay a foundation beneath religious messages using the rationality of philosophy. The development of symbiotic panentheism does not destroy religious arguments. Symbiotic panentheism reinforce religious arguments regarding the significance of the individual and free will.

15. Saint Augustine/Augustine of Hippo (354-430) - Q1:

Why is the individual important?

… Augustine believed that philosophy was only useful or meaningful to those who already had faith. He said, "I believe in order that I may understand." … This view has much in common with Descartes. Augustine, for example, believed that there existed – beyond the world of the senses – a spiritual and eternal realm of truth. This truth is the object of the human mind, and the goal of all our striving. He identified this truth with the God of the Christian faith. Augustine felt that man was a combination of two substances: the body and the soul. The soul is the more important and the superior of the two.

S: Without faith in what one reasons, reason has no bases for acting as a foundation for one’s actions.

But reason would argue that if ‘I exist’ then so do others. If I am aware, if I have knowing, it is not reasonable to suggest that I am the only sub-element of knowing to which these statements apply. It is not reasonable to suggest that it is I who creates, initiates, develops all manner of scientific models of the universe, mathematical equations defining the universe, biological – chemical – geological – genetic – technological – astronomical – psychological – pharmaceutical – metrological – physics based concepts, laws, and unveilings that take place let alone produce the creative side of our specie’s music, art, literature, …

It is reasonable, however, to argue that many sub-elements of knowing, billions of sub-elements of knowing, billions of sub-elements such as myself, could develop and create the vast array of intricate pieces of knowing, intricate pieces of knowledge, and intricate forms of creativity our specie has added to its collection.

It is reasonable to acknowledge there is a total summation of knowing/knowledge, which is ‘known’. The total summation of such knowledge/knowing may not be something any sub-element ‘knows’ for each sub-element is just that a ‘sub’ element. On the other hand it is more reasonable to perceive of a whole of knowledge, be it in the form of singularity or multiplicity, than it is to perceive of no ‘whole’/’summation’ of knowledge.

Thus reason would argue for the existence of both multiplicity and singularity. Thus reason suggests any existence should be in the form of both singularity ‘and’ multiplicity, as opposed to philosophy’s present attempt to prove overwhelmingly that existence is an ‘either/or’ scenario.

The only existing model to incorporate a dynamic ‘and’ scenario where all the elements, multiplicity – nothingness – singularity, have a specified function is symbiotic panentheism, ‘being’ being ‘Being’.

The point: The model being put forward by this work fully supports St. Augustine’s intuitive sense that:

… there existed – beyond the world of the senses – a spiritual and eternal realm of truth.

as well as supports St. Augustine’s intuitive sense that:

… man was a combination of two substances: the body and the soul. The soul is the more
important and the superior of the two.

for it is the soul/the abstractual existence of ‘being’/individuality which, within this model of reality, identifies with the furthest reaches of reality, namely the whole of the abstract itself.

15. Saint Augustine / Augustine of Hippo (354-430) – Q2:

What is morality?

… He rejected the epistemological criticisms of earlier philosophers such as the Skeptics. He argued that even if everything around us is an illusion, then one inescapable truth will still remain: that I exist. … The truth of existence could not lie in a contingent and changing world, but in the truth that could only be found by inner reflection. The mind was the means of finding the "intelligible light" where the real truth could be found. Consequently, the soul’s immortality is proved by its possession of this unchanging "truth." Thus, the "intelligible light" is where real truth is found.
… To prove that God exists, Augustine drew heavily upon the ideas of Plato and Pythagoras. If we are capable of achieving mathematical knowledge - thereby transcending the sensory realm of appearance - we can therefore logically conclude that our souls are immaterial and immortal. Augustine recognized that additional metaphysical support was needed for this argument. Where does the abstract mathematical knowledge come from? What is the eternal source of these abstractions? This, he concluded, must be God.

S: These arguments put forward by St. Augustine himself speak more eloquently regarding the validity of the model of reality being suggested by this work than anything additional I could add.

What can we conclude regarding the practicality of morality? … Augustine believed that we were all sinful by nature, but that a good God had given us the freedom to choose our own actions. But the question then arises: if we are sinful by nature – and have original sin – then how can we make free and moral choices?

If our actions generate complex abstractual patterns, which remain indissolvable, then we, as individuals governed by the law of free will, must take responsibility as to what it is we add to the whole of abstraction. We have a choice as to what it is we will decide to do with our lives and such a decision will ripple through both physical reality and abstractual reality.

But what of the concept of sin? The metaphysical model being examined would suggest ‘sin’ is a choice we freely make. ‘Sin’ is the choice we make to impact the physical and the abstractual in a negative fashion. The model suggest ‘sin’ is an act of free will committed in a conscious effort to fashion positively impact ourselves while knowingly impacting others in a negative manner. The so-called acts of ‘sin’ lie not in the act but in the intent of the act.

Are we sinful by nature as St. Augustine suggests? The metaphysical model of ‘being’ being ‘Being’ would suggest we are ‘sinful’ by nature since ‘sin’ is the ‘chosen’ act of succumbing to the attraction of the physical at the expense of our own abstractual existence, the physical existence of to others, the abstractual existence of others, as well as the whole/God itself. If we did not have ‘free will’ ‘sin’ would not be an issue. But, we, have free will. We have a choice as to what actions we take. It is our intent to look out for number one and step on number two that gets us ‘repulsive’ dilemmas. ‘The end justifies the means.’ will not absolve one from the irreversible affects one’s actions have upon themselves, others, and the whole.

The point: The model suggest that the ultimate form of action/behavior would be altruistic in nature since it is our abstractual form which is timeless in nature. Action based upon materialism thus becomes a shortsighted goal immersed within time. The more visionary goals, actions intended to impact timelessness itself are actions based upon altruism, principles, and practical idealism. Acts of altruism, principles, and practical idealism, however, are not acts of selflessness since such acts affect the very environment within which one eventually finds oneself existing once having completed their journey within physical reality.

16. Boethius / A. M. S. (480-525) – Q1:

Is there a difference between ‘appearance’ and ‘reality’?

… Are "universals" real? If so, are they corporeal or incorporeal?

S: The corporal/physical is ‘real’ when the incorporeal/abstraction ‘appears’ to be an illusion and the incorporeal/abstractual is real when the corporal/physical ‘appears’ to be an illusion.

It ‘appears’ to be undeniably apparent that:

It ‘appears’ to be irrefutably apparent that:

It ‘appears’ to be unquestionably apparent that:

Again and again and again we come back to the same paradoxical dilemmas, which the ‘either/or’ scenarios germinate. Again there appears to be no reasonable solution we can model which resolves the vast diversity of ‘either/or’ dilemmas, which confront us philosophically, religiously, and scientifically.

The social, religious, scientific, philosophical, … paradoxes have been with us for thousands of years, have been with us since we began attempting to resolve the issues. The existence of these seemingly irresolvable paradoxes have been with us for eons not because we cannot resolve them but because we choose not to do so. We are not willing to seriously consider any scenario other than the ‘either/or’ scenario.

But is there a different scenario than the ‘either/or’ scenario’? There is another scenario. The second scenario is the ‘and’ scenario. We can simply replace the words ‘either’/’or’ with the word ‘and’.

This work examines eleven historical ‘either/or’ philosophical paradoxes and replaces each with an ‘and’ scenario. The replacement is modeled within the framework of ‘location’ of existence/the where, a move to composition of existence/the what, and finally formulates the purpose of existence/the why. The work, The War and Peace of a New Metaphysical Perception, immerses its examinations within the realm of metaphysics. Metaphysics becomes the initial field of study for the new model of reality because metaphysics is in the most expansive field of study regarding ‘location’. It is through an expansion of location that the ‘and’ becomes clearly exemplified as ‘the’ means of resolving the less emotionally volatile issues of philosophical paradoxes.

The point: We can resolve our religious, scientific, philosophical, … contentious issues once we are willing to think ‘out of the box’, think ‘beyond’ the physical, think metaphysically. The thought process required to resolve our divisive issues is not a difficult process to learn. The process simply requires we replace the ‘either/or’ scenarios we have freely and willing established for ourselves with the ‘and’ scenario.