Philosophy: we are a part of the greater whole – Total abstraction

Religion: we are a part of the greater whole – Original causation

Science: we are a part of the greater whole – Climax ecosystem

It may very well be that universes lie within the total, within the ‘Whole’. If this is the model we are going to use, we know we are in one of those universes. Interesting questions now surface. If our universe is just one of many, than what’s in the others? That question is for another time, another discussion. Right now, we need to move ahead. We have built a sample model out of the three perceived ‘truths’, you exist, the universe exists, and causation exists. The model we built was one of your being within the universe which in turn was within the ‘whole’.

The three truths, you exist, the universe exists, and the ‘whole’ exists, have lead us to the conclusion that we are inside the whole and are thus a part of the whole, a piece of the whole. This concept is summed up by the Greek term, panentheism. Where we are and what we are now lead us to the third question, ‘Why do we exist?’ It is here that the model introduces the second fundamental implied by it: the concept of panentheism being accompanied by symbiosis.

Many exciting and mind boggling questions flood the mind at this point but we are here for a reason and that is to examine a ‘universal philosophy’ model; symbiotic panentheism in particular. This essay has a direction and we must stay on task or lose sight of the purpose we have set up. The purpose of this essay is to examine the new concept of developing a ‘universal philosophy’ using the process of bracketing and reductionism. Therefore, it is time to examine what this model would imply concerning the question, Why do we exist?

Why do we exist? Definition generating purpose. Parts of the Whole growing the Whole - Symbiosis

Religion took the point position regarding the question, Where are we?
Philosophy took the point position regarding the question, What are we?
Science, therefore, will take the point position regarding the question, Why do we exist?

Science likes to get straight to the point. Since this section will be lead by science lets do the same:

Symbiosis: An interaction between individuals of different species (symbiants). The term symbiosis is usually restricted to interactions in which both species benefit but it may be used for other close associations such as ‘commensalism. Many symbiosis are obligatory (i.e. the participants cannot survive without the interactions: for example, a lichen is an obligatory symbiotic relationship between an alga or a blue green bacterium and a fungus.’
- Oxford Concise Science Dictionary – third edition

Again questions break out with a flurry, but we cannot address them at this point. We are on a roll and must move ahead with all due speed. We are so close to answering the question, ‘Why do we exist?’

This particular model takes three truths and then proceeds to use them to define our location, Where are we? We are inside the ‘whole’. From this understanding of where we are comes an understanding of what we are. We are a part of the ‘whole’. We are a piece of the ‘whole’, a piece of causation, a piece of abstraction, a piece of the all presence, a piece of the all knowing. We might as well say it at this point; the model would say we are a piece of God.

So what does this have to do with symbiosis? It is panentheism - lead by religion and supported by science and philosophy - which defines our location. It is panentheism, led by philosophy and supported by religion and science, which defines what we are.

But it is within the model of ‘symbiotic panentheism’, symbiosis, and lead by science and supported by philosophy and religion that defines our purpose.

It is appropriate for science to take the lead regarding the question: Why do we exist? This is perhaps the most difficult question for a model of a universal philosophy to address. Science, with its expertise in creating models, science with its expertise in creating visual depictions of interactive dynamics that take place between and within systems, caters to our strongest means of understanding. It is sciences, which caters to our means of understanding complex issues through the process of drawing pictures and making models we can see, look at, observe.

We could use any number of scientific fields to help us understand why we exist. For this presentation, however, we will use the field of ecology and its process of creating web models.
Let’s use the example of a wolf. Wolves are predatory animals. They thin out the herds of deer in forest biomes. Without them, the deer herds would explode. The overpopulation of deer would deplete the food supply for the herd, creating weak animals and the prominence of starvation and disease. Other animals: squirrels, birds, mice, etc. would suffer as the seed supplies produced by grasses and shrubs were sharply reduced by the overgrazing of populous deer herds. Young trees would have very little chance of surviving with the deer foraging for food in record numbers. Without the wolf, the balance of the forest would definitely change. A healthy forest with a healthy population of plants and animals could become one filled with disease and suffering. Without the wolf, the future of the forest could be placed in jeopardy.

The whole is dependent upon each of its parts. Without each of its parts the whole changes. Whether it changes for the better or the worse is subjective. Whether ‘better’ or ‘worse’ is not the point here, the point here is: If a piece of the ‘whole’ is removed, the ‘whole’ changes.

But science reinforces the concept of the ‘whole’ not being the same if a part of it is missing, in many other ways. Science, using observations we have made regarding cosmology, is now leaning strongly in the direction of the universe being created from nothing, being a burp off from another universe, being a higher level of potentiality than the least level of vacuum potential,

It is science that illustrates that the ‘whole’ would not be what it is without you. It is perhaps difficult to understand this in the abstract sense but as we have previously seen, we can examine this concept using set and subsets concepts to form a more concrete picture of the concept: you and I are a part of the ‘Whole’.

The understanding of symbiosis can be taken to another level by ecology. In an ecosystem, we can study the big picture, the physical aspects of the system to understand the smaller aspects, the individual living portions, or we can study the smaller portions, the individual living portions, to understand the larger picture, the physical aspect, and the biome.

In terms of our understanding ‘why we exist’, it is difficult to begin an understanding of ourselves by studying the ‘whole’ since we have no idea what the ‘whole’ is, other than the ‘whole’. So to begin understanding our purpose to the ‘whole’ we must come from the direction of studying ourselves in order to understand what our function might be to the ‘whole’.

We can better understand why we exist if we understand where we are and thus determine what we are to the whole. As an example, if science had no ways of observing the entire picture of a Northern Forest Biome and could only examine the body of a fox and its den it might begin an analysis of the biome in which the fox lived by studying the body and den of the fox. The analysis might begin in the following manner:

1. The long bushy tale would suggest a need for balance and warmth – Conclusion: the biome is cold at times and extensive in size and filled with many obstructions that need to be maneuvered around quickly.
2. The red color – would suggest a need for recognition – Others of its kind existing hidden within its territory – the density of the Biomes plant life starts to expand.
3. The abundance of body hair would further suggest a need for protection against extreme cold – the extremes of cold in the biome expand.
4. The pads on the feet would suggest the need for quiet running and going long distances – the size of the biome expands further.
5. Sharp canine teeth – carnivore, binocular vision – predator, long nose, pointed ears facing forward.
6. Underground – a need to find protection from what moves upon the surface.
7. Hidden – the concept of something above ground being threatening expands.
8. The analysis would proceed to studying the organ systems of the fox, to the tissues, cells, molecules, atoms, subatomic particles, etc, etc, etc.
9. All add to our understanding of the larger picture of the forest biome without our even needing to examine the forest biome directly.

The more we study the organism, the fox, the more we can begin to understand the ecosystem within which the fox lives without our even seeing this ecosystem. The more we study the organism, the fox, the more we begin to understand the function, the purpose of the fox’s very existence within its biome.

Because the biome outside our universe is so difficult for us to study directly we have little option but use this same technique scientist have used to study systems deep below us in the ocean, and far above us in the heavens. We can examine ourselves, in order to understand what we are immersed within and thus deduce why it is we think we exist.

Science strongly suggests that if we are a part of, a piece of the whole, we interact with the whole. Science suggests that we have a function. We do not just exist; we are not just a part of the universe. We affect the greater Reality that lies beyond our universe. We impact the whole of whatever we and our universe lie within.

It is science, through symbiosis, which gives us a clue. It is science, through symbiosis that asks: How can we exist ‘within’ the whole without changing the whole? How can we exist ‘within’ the whole without affecting the characteristic of the whole itself?’

Philosophy, reason, reinforces the concept of symbiosis introduced by science.

You can never take yourself out of the whole. The past, what you have done in life already exists. Nothing can be done to change it. The present does not exist for it is simply a point that separates what it is you are about to do from what you have already done. It is the future to which we must look when we examine where it is we believe our purpose lies. You cannot change the past but you can change what it is you plan to do, hope to do, wish to do and as such can do. You affect the whole, the ever growing and expanding characteristic of the ‘whole’, the continuing evolution of God.

It is reason, philosophy, which supports science in the perception that if we do exist within the ‘whole’ we are a piece of the ‘whole’ and as such we add to the ‘whole’, we affect the very outcome of what the ‘whole’ is. We affect what the whole is in the process of becoming, evolving into.

It is philosophy which would support science in suggesting that you and I are not insignificant but rather that we are immensely significant to the ‘whole’ and thus it is you and I that have a great deal of responsibility to live up to.

Religions reinforce the concept of symbiosis introduced by science. Religions stress the concept that nothing exists without a function and purpose.

Religions support the observations of science through their own means. It was religion that began the recognition of the concept of Totality. It was religion that began the recognition of the temporary state of the physical. It was religion, which began the recognition of the concept of time being only temporary. It was religion, which began the recognition of the concept of eternal existence. It is religion that has given us the concepts of:

1. God created man in His image and in the image of God created man.
2. Man can, through his own efforts, rise to the level of being absorbed into the oneness of God.
3. Omnipresence – all things must be inside God, a part of God.
4. Omniscience – God has the knowledge regarding how to learn what it does not yet know.
5. Omnipotence – God has the power to implement this knowledge.

Science, philosophy, and religion all agree on the basic fundamental concept that we are a part of the ‘whole’. We are a part of our ultimate climax ecosystem.

What we are immersed within and what that in turn is immersed within define us. We are immersed within our universe and the universe is immersed within the whole.

It is this model, panentheism joined with symbiosis, which say that we, you and I are not just inside God - ‘panentheism’, we are a part of God, we affect who God is through a process known by science as ‘Symbiosis’. It is the combination of the two - panentheism and symbiosis - that answers all the questions: Where are we? What are we? Why do we exist? It is the fusion of the two concepts that creates the model called ‘symbiotic panentheism’.

It is because the model implies that we are actually a ‘piece of God, and actually impact God, that the model of ‘symbiotic panentheism’ may very well be unacceptable to our society.

A universal philosophy must be easy to understand. It must be acceptable to the individual. In addition, it must provide the type of impact upon the individual, society, the environment, and the universe itself which we as a species find agreeable.

As we have seen, the concept of symbiotic panentheism may very well be unacceptable to the majority of individuals comprising our species. As we will see in the next section, the impact of the model, ‘symbiotic panentheism’, produces actions which in turn initiate reactions which in turn creates an ambiance for our species, which we may not be willing to accept.

If the impracticality of the universal model called ‘symbiotic panentheism’ is recognized as possibly being impractical and having little chance of being recognized as ‘the’ model of a universal philosophy, then why should we consider it at all?

We need to begin somewhere in terms of both understanding what a universal philosophy is and what a universal philosophy has to offer us as a species. ‘Symbiotic panentheism’ is considered to be a ‘first try’ at developing a universal philosophy, a form of universal ethics. ‘Symbiotic panentheism’ is the initial model being placed upon the pedestal to act as the target, the initial sample of what it is we are to displace, replace, with a better, more acceptable model.

It is Husserl’s process and Hawking’s process which lead us to the idea of beginning to analyze: Where it is we think we are? What it is we think we are? Why it is we think we exist? It is this process that may finally lead members of our species, lead you and I, into an understanding of just why it is we exist. Once we understand the answer to this question, we will begin to understand just what types of behavior we are willing to tolerate not only in regards to our individual selves, but to our entire species and other species that might exist elsewhere in the universe.

Philosophy and Husserl’s process in particular, are a very important topics for humankind. They lead us into understanding what it is we think we are and why it is we think we exist. As we discussed before, these concepts generate actions, which generate reactions, which in turn generate the ambiance which embraces us and which we in turn embrace.

The concept: ‘The philosophers have only interpreted the world in various ways. The point however, is to change it.’ may be perceived as having generated very negative actions on the part of our species. It is not the quote, nor the idea of the quote, however, which generated the negativism. It was men using the idea of the quote to perpetuate their own desires for personal gain who generated the negativism.

It is because of this potential for generating negativism that the process, examining the impact of a universal philosophy we generate, is a crucial process. As we will see in the third part of this essay, the impact of a universal philosophy has great potential for resolving hostilities, abuse, confusion, and chaos generated by individuals as entities as well as resolving these issues for our species as a whole. The potential of a universal philosophy to resolve issues, brings with it solutions some of us may not be willing to accept even though they are reasonable, fit our faiths, and produce observable positive results. As such it is crucial we examine the impact of the universal philosophy we generate before we decide to use it as ‘the’ beginning point from which we generate a more acceptable universal philosophy.

There is little doubt that Husserl would have embraced the three truths: you exist, the universe exists, and Causation (Totality, God if you will) exists.

On the other hand, Heidegger, Husserl’s student may very well have embraced the concept of bracketing and reduction as espoused by Husserl, but he only accepted the concept of you existing and the universe existing. The rejection of the third truth, Causation existing, leads to an entirely different outcome and allows for the rational acceptance of such perceptions as the validity of Nazism along with the negative repercussions generated by such a perceptual political stand.

The ‘negativism’ generated by Nazism for certain portion of our society has not gone away. Nazism is still a vibrant aspect of our species society. It may not exist as a major ‘above ground’ element but there is no denying it exists as a small seething element of our societies immersed as a part of the underground, just waiting to surface and explode once again.

It is because of this potential negativism that we must never forget to perform the last step in the process of developing a universal philosophy. It is because of this negativism that we must never forget to examine the impact of any universal philosophy we develop.

This leads us into the third and perhaps most important aspect of this essay, the impact.

III: The New Metaphysical Perception: Examine the impact the modeled universal philosophy generates

• Use truth to examining the impact the model universal philosophy generates

Examining the Impact in terms of the past
In part I of this essay, the search for ‘truths’, philosophy took the lead. In part II of this presentation, building the model, religion took the lead. In this part of the essay, science will take the lead. In this section, we are going to examine the impact the model we have generated would have upon the individual, upon society, upon the environment and upon other intelligent life forms should we encounter them as we extend our presence beyond the solar system.

It is this section, which will demonstrate the impracticality of the model of ‘symbiotic panentheism’ yet led us to understand why it is a universal philosophy, has such potential for our species. A universal philosophy has the ability to resolve major issues of society and future issues of intergalactic proportions.

As we examine how ‘symbiotic panentheism’ can act as a problem solver, keep in mind that a more accurate model would have even greater benefits for our species.

We are perhaps the only entity on earth that strives to become what it perceives itself to be, which strives to become what it defines itself to be. As we discussed previously, we have three basic means of developing perceptions. We develop perceptions regarding what it is we think we are, based upon our: observations, based upon our reasoning, and based upon what we believe.

Keep this in mind as we move into the third and last segment of this essay.

Universal philosophies are viable models, which fuse ontological, cosmological, and metaphysical concepts or put more simply universal philosophies fuse the most fundamental concepts of religion, science, and philosophy. A universal philosophy is a model of the interactions, which occur between you, the universe, and what lies beyond. And lastly, a universal philosophy presents a viable model explaining the concepts of Metaphysics, the process of using reason to making sense of Cosmology and Ontology, in terms of the question, ‘Why’ it all, you, the universe, and God, work like they do.

For a universal philosophy to be ‘viable’ it must be functional. If a universal philosophy, ‘knowing the mind of God.’ As Stephen Hawking describes it, is truly knowing the mind of God then such knowledge would have had, would have, and will have a major impact upon us as individuals, upon us as a species, upon the universe, and upon God Itself. As such, the impact of a universal philosophy becomes a major issue requiring our most sincere efforts.

Our species is known for its knee jerk reactions. We think up ideas and then implement them with little concern for their impact. The power of an idea is immense and the more universal the idea the more powerful it is. A ‘universal philosophy’, by definition, is as powerful as any idea can become. It is imperative, therefore, that before we accept any universal philosophy, we examine its potential impact very carefully.

This type of examination should not only encompass what the model would do to us presently, but the examination should encompass what the model would have done to us in the past, as well as what the model would do to us in the future.

With this thought in mind, let’s begin the examination all universal philosophies must undergo. Let’s begin examining the impact of a universal philosophy such as symbiotic panentheism in terms of the past.

The examination of the impact of a universal philosophy is perhaps the most important aspect of the process of model building. We must look at the impact the model of a universal philosophy would have in terms of several issues. We must consider the impact in terms of the individual, society, the environment, other life forms outside our solar system, and in terms of what lies beyond the very boundaries of our universe. After we have examined the impact of a ‘universal philosophy’ would generate, then, and only then, can we decide upon the validity of the model.

We are going to have science take the point position in this aspect of the discussion because science is based upon observation, and we can only observe what is and the only part of time that is, is the past. As such, we will allow science to begin with the past because it is the past that is already over and therefore it is only the past, which we can observe. The past is not ‘in the process of being formed’, that is the present. The past is not ‘what can potentially be formed’, that is the future.

If symbiotic panentheism had, in the past, been accepted as the model regarding the reason for our existence, then how would it have changed our past actions?

In terms of the individual: With symbiotic panentheism in place
We would never have allowed the individual to be tortured by religious organizations during the years of the inquisition, for the individual would have been perceived as a piece of the ‘whole’, a piece of ‘causation’ a piece of ‘God’. As such, who would have been so bold as to declare they had the right, they had the authority over, and they had the ability to judge another piece of God?

We would never have allowed Unit 731 to proceed with its use of humans for medical research. This unit formed by the Japanese would never have been considered as a viable means for gathering live human data for wartime purposes. Each of the hundreds of thousands of lives brutally murdered for the sake of medical research would have been seen as pieces of God and the thought of brutalizing even one piece of God would have been unthinkable.

In terms of our species: With symbiotic panentheism in place
We would never have allowed the culture of the American Indians to succumb to the power of western religions. The uniqueness of the American Indian Cultures would have been seen as examples of the ability of our species to impact the evolution of the ‘whole’, to impact the evolution of causation’, to impact the evolution of ‘God’ Itself. As such we would have done everything in our power to protect the rights of the American Indians and allowed them to preserve their cultures should they have decided that was what they wished to do.

We would never have accepted the concept of enslaving a piece of God and using them for our own ends. The new metaphysical perception leads to the perception that forcing pieces of God to toil for our personal gain and intimidating pieces of God to bow to our personal desires is a ludicrous action to perpetuate.

In terms of our home, the environment: With symbiotic panentheism in place
We never would have allowed the great white pines of the Midwest to be completely cut and destroyed for they would have been understood to be a place for contemplation, meditation, and connecting with the ‘whole’, ‘causation’, ‘God’ Itself. They would have been understood to be resources to be used by future generations, future pieces of God. They would have been seen as natural temples built by God for us to enjoy and for those who would follow us to enjoy.

We never would have hunted the whales to the point of extinction. The point of taking temporary wealth for the benefit of a few souls living in the present at the expense of the needs and enjoyment of many souls in the future. Irrational actions such as this would have been easily identified and prevented before they became a problem.

Who would have had the courage to do such negative things had they had the type of elevated perception symbiotic panentheism would have established. Who would have had the courage to subjugate, intimidate, and abuse journeys of their fellow travelers, their fellow comrades, their neighbors once they understood the responsibilities with which symbiotic panentheism would have shouldered them.

Surely people in the field of science never would have submitted other humans to the agonizing affects of lobotomies, necklacing, napalming, crucifixion, disembowelment, Chinese water treatment, gas warfare, nuclear destruction, fire bombings, electroshock interrogation, and on, and on, ad nausea.

Surely people in the field of philosophy would never have submitted other humans to the agonizing effects of philosophical perceptions as embraced by the KKK, the Nazi, the people’s revolt of China, the after affects of the Bolshevik Revolution, the after affects of the French Revolution, the invasion of the Mongol hoards, the march of Sherman, etc.

Surely people in the field of religion would never have submitted other humans to the agonizing effects of the rack, burning at the stake, the ‘holy’ wars, the inquisition, the annihilation of unique cultures within the Americas, Australia, Africa, Tibet, etc.

Under the model of the universal philosophy, symbiotic panentheism, each individual is in essence three in one:

First: we are the physical. In this aspect we are the same as the rock itself, the mountain itself, the lake, river, sand, air, sun, moon, star…). This is called the body.

Second: we are awareness. In this aspect we have the ability to be aware of our surroundings just as dogs, bears, fish, birds, crickets, trees, shrubs, grasses…do. For you and I, this aspect of our essence involves the nervous system.

And thirdly: we are abstraction. In this aspect we have the ability to be aware of our awareness (as far as we know for certain, we are the only life form on earth with this ability). The awareness of awareness is the ability to understand what it is to love. It is the ability to understand what it is to hate. It is the ability to understand the repercussions generated by our acts of love and hate. It is the understanding that we are responsible for these acts. We may not be able to control whether or not we love or hate, but we can control the actions such emotions generate. This capability is the essence of our existence, the essence of our being, what one might call the soul.

Under the model of the universal philosophy, symbiotic panentheism, it is the soul that is timeless, it is the soul that is a part of the ‘whole’, it is the soul that is abstract, it is the soul that is a piece of God. As such, under the model of symbiotic panentheism, the soul can never be destroyed. Under the model of symbiotic panentheism, it is the soul, which travels using the vehicle of the body and mind. Under symbiotic panentheism, it is the soul that is the awareness of our existence and journey within this reality. As such, under symbiotic panentheism, it is the soul that is abused when the body and mind are abused. And because of all this, under symbiotic panentheism it is understood that the soul, traveling within the framework of the individual, is only to be constrained in its journey if it is interfering with the journey of another soul, another piece of God.

If we had has this perspective in our past history, there is no doubt that our past history would have been significantly different.