Select Tractate Abstract Introduction Contents Metaphysical Systems Husserl, Hawking, & I Ockham's Razor Wrong Again The Beginning Why Now? Conclusion : The Peer Review Postscript : Chaos, Complexity, and Metaphysics

---

Tractate 14 : Husserl, Hawking & I - The Third Principle of Philosophy : Responsibility (continued)

Examining the Impact in terms of the present
Religion, what we believe, gives us the strength in our conviction that we exist, the universe exists, and there is more to existence than what the universe shows us. Religions gives us the strength to believe through faith that there is a ‘Whole’, a summation, and that we are a part of this whole. Therefore, it is religion that gives us the strength to go on day after day in our constant effort to shape the future. It is religion that gives us the strength to shrug off the negatives of the day and bask in the positives believing there is a reason to it all. It is religion, which day after day, year after year, millennium after millennium tells us we are responsible for our actions and will reap our own just rewards.

It is religion that will represent the present because it is the present, which has not yet been formed, and that cannot be changed. It is the present that is the shortest of the three time frames of past, present, and future. It is the present that is the most elusive, for it is gone before it has even started. It is the present, which is the most important of the three for it is the present, which forms the past, and it is the present, which will shape the future. Since the present is so elusive, yet so important, we will let religion take the point lead for it is religion that has the ability to provide comfort through faith. And it is only through faith, rather than what we observe or reason, that we constantly hope for the best as we face the hardships of life day after day.

We cannot change the past. The past is done. On the other hand, we are fully aware of the fact that we are responsible for the future. Perhaps that is one of the reasons, religion, faiths, what we believe, are so important to us as individuals and as a species. We understand we are responsible for the future and this responsibility is almost too heavy a responsibility for us to bear. But this too is another topic for future discussions. It is time to examine the present and the impact ‘symbiotic panentheism’ would have upon a period of time so short it does not exist. It is time to examine a period of time so significant it affects eternity.

If symbiotic panentheism were presently accepted as the model regarding the reason for our existence, then how would it change our present actions? We often think the atrocities of the past do not and will not occur in the present. We look at society today as humane and caring. But lets be honest about it for a minute and look at our society in terms of what the universal philosophy of symbiotic panentheism would say if we considered the essence, the soul of the individual, to be a piece of God.

In terms of the individual: With symbiotic panentheism in place
How could we ever justify the process of sucking out the brains of a baby while its body is held by a nurse and the head is forced to remain within the vaginal canal of the mother as is done during a partial birth abortion? This process would be looked upon, as the termination of a journey of God rather than the simple process of a woman deciding the fate of her own journey.

How could we ever justify the process of electrocuting, hanging, gassing, injecting a poison into a human labeled by society as a criminal? We would no longer be looking upon the capital punishment as terminating a man’s life but rather it would be seen as subjecting the soul, a piece of God Itself to these heinous acts. Who would ever consider being the one to initiate the process that would cause the body of a piece of God to be burned to a crisp while strapped in a chair, or strangled while dangling from a rope, or convulsing from the effects of cyanide gas. Who would even consider initiating the process of putting the body, a soul’s vehicle for travel, in a state of sleep so deep that the contained soul would never again be allowed the freedom to finalize the purpose for which it was injected into this reality.

In terms of our species: With symbiotic panentheism in place
How could we ever justify stockpiling weapons of mass destruction intended to annihilate our whole species should anyone dare intrude upon our space? Nuclear weapons stockpiles, biological weapons stockpiles, chemical weapons stockpiles would have all been looked upon as acts of lunacy.

How could we ever justify the process of incarcerating millions of souls because those souls had freely decided to take ‘drugs’? Such treatment of one piece of God let alone so many pieces of God would be declared ludicrous.

In terms of our home, the environment: With symbiotic panentheism in place
How could we ever justify the process of cutting down the entire rain forests and eliminate the phenomenal benefits it has for us in the present as well as the potential benefits it has for future generations to come. Why would we not offer to find the economic means, through organizations such as the World Bank, to raise the living standards of the inhabitants within the rain forests in exchange for their efforts to care for, protect, and groom this wonderful resource. They have been given the responsibility to oversee these lands for their souls were the souls introduced into these regions of our universe at this point in time. Who would we find more appropriate to train and entrust with this natural resource of humankind than pieces of God.

How could we ever justify letting HIV contaminated blood be used in the attempts to save lives, journeys of pieces of God. The atrocious act of attempting to save a few dollars at the expense of completely altering the journeys of souls would be beyond belief with symbiotic panentheism in place.

As the past moves into the present our sphere of influence grows.

In terms of other galactic life forms: With symbiotic panentheism in place
How could we ever justify sending signals into the far reaches of outer space with the implied message that we would find an encounter with other life forms to be a challenge for power we would relish.

How could we ever justify attempting to convert, impose upon, or brainwash other galactic life forms to accept our religious, scientific, or philosophical viewpoints?

How could we ever justify taking a passive position of allowing ourselves to be dominated by a more aggressive life form we may encounter in the far reaches of space? If we perceived ourselves to be pieces of God journeying with a purpose, how could we ever give up the belief we embraced regarding the freedom to journey uninhibited?

With the universal model of symbiotic panentheism in place, who would have the courage to abuse others or abuse themselves if they had the type of elevated perception of their fellow travelers, their fellow comrades, their neighbors’ symbiotic panentheism would generate. Who would have the courage to abuse God or refuse to take responsibility for generating what it is our faiths, our observations, our reasoning were telling us should not be taking place. The responsibility with which symbiotic panentheism would shoulder us would be forever on our minds, forever confronting us, forever reminding us that ‘we must never forget’.

In fact the concept of punishing pieces of God would be seen for what it was, acts of punishing God Itself. Punishment would no longer be considered as a viable action. Termination of any journey for any reason would become an archaic act. Incarceration would only be used as a last resort to protect the journey of others. Geographical restriction, electronic tethering, community service, remuneration, etc. would take the place of the more barbaric forms of punishment. Punishment for any action a person freely decided to take, which had no impact upon a soul other than their own would be dismissed as an archaic reaction to the inalienable right of a piece of God to journey unhindered by others.

With a universal philosophy such as symbiotic panentheism in place would we ever attempt to keep one soul, a piece of God, from acting upon its desire to interfere with other journeys? Yes. Would we mentor pieces of God? Yes. Would we provide alternatives for what we perceived to be self-abusive actions about to be committed by pieces of God? Yes. Would we offer the necessities of life to all pieces of God? Yes. Offer them protection from abuse? Yes. Incarcerated them to prevent them from interfering with other journeys? Yes. And on it would go.

Examining the Impact in terms of the future
We first examined how ‘symbiotic panentheism’, a test model of a universal philosophy, would impact the past and present. Now it is time to examine how this universal philosophy would impact the future. We waited to examine the future impact of a universal philosophy until last because if a universal philosophy cannot cope with the past and the present in a manner we find acceptable, then how can we expect it to cope with our future?

And it is reason, philosophy that gives us an assurance we will have an impact upon the future. It is reason, philosophy to which we look when we examine the future. It is reason we must use to examine the impact a universal philosophy would have upon the future for the future has not yet occurred and therefore we cannot yet see it. The future has not yet occurred and therefore we cannot believe it will be what we fear it will become. It is reason which gives us the hope we so dearly cling to, the hope that through our actions, the future will be better than the present and the past.

For these reasons we have left the examination of the future impact of symbiotic panentheism to philosophy. It is reason that will examine what impact a universal philosophy would have upon our future as individuals, upon our future as a species, upon the future of other species in the universe, upon the universe, and most significantly, upon what lies outside the very boundaries of our universe.

We can outright change actions of the future for they have not yet begun to occur. Termination centers, genocide, infanticide, war, famine, poverty can be relegated to the tragedies of the past if we chose to do so, if we have the correct perceptual outlook.

If symbiotic panentheism were accepted in the future as the model regarding the reason for our existence, then how would it change our future actions?

In terms of the individual: With symbiotic panentheism in place
We would never establish termination centers for the old and dying. We would never encourage those we deemed ‘nonproductive’ members of society to terminate themselves. On the other hand we would never judge or condemn pieces of God for having terminated their own journeys.

We would never allow pieces of God to suffer in pain because we wished to burden them with our perceptions of ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ and as such we did not want them becoming ‘addicted’ to the drug of morphine because being addicted was ‘wrong’. We would never allow these pieces of God to suffer needlessly.

In terms of our species: With symbiotic panentheism in place
We would never accept the killing of doctors who perform partial birth abortions. With the universal philosophy of symbiotic panentheism in place, we would understand the concept that to kill is to end a journey of a piece of God. Under symbiotic panentheism, the individual would work within society to change society for it would be understood that society was established by free souls as the environment within which free souls may journey freely.

We would never judge another soul for their personal beliefs. The concept of condemning a soul, a piece of God to eternal hell if they did not mouth the words, ‘I believe…’ would be blasphemous. We would never accept the type of action known as exclusivism.

In terms of our home, the environment: With symbiotic panentheism in place
We would never accept the idea of poisoning the ground water, secretly dumping toxic wastes, marketing fresh foods enveloped with insecticides, or fouling the air with noxious gasses in the hopes of gaining a short-term financial gain?

We would never accept the concept of polluting near space with so much space debris that future pieces of God may find it almost impossible to use it for their own benefit and the benefit of those to follow them?

In terms of other galactic life forms: With symbiotic panentheism in place
We would never attempt to conquer planets belonging to other pieces of God and shackle their journeys in order to facilitate our own journey as we did to members of our own species, as we did to souls confined within bodies similar to our own.

We would never, as pieces of God, allow other life forms to conquer our planet or undermine our own journeys.

As the present moves into the future our sphere of influence grows once again.

In terms of the ‘whole’ itself: With symbiotic panentheism in place
Would we ever again interfere with a journey of an individual as long as that individual was not interfering with someone else’s journey?

Would we ever willingly accept someone else intimidating us or anyone else, abusing us or anyone else, using us or anyone else?

Would we ever again turn our backs on the needs of others if they were in need of our assistance?

Symbiotic panentheism would create a perceptual shift for humanity. The question becomes, ‘Would it shift people away form their religions?’ Absolutely not! Rather it would bring them closer to their religions.

A universal philosophy such as symbiotic panentheism is not a belief in something; it is a reasoning process. A universal philosophy is not a faith in something; it is a philosophical perception that acts as a fundamental perception to be added to the faiths that a person embraces. Faith deals with what we cannot prove. Observations deal with something we can measure. Reason on the other hand just allows us to make sense of what it is we believe and observe. Perceptions are not constants. They change continually. Perceptions change on a moment-to-moment basis. They act as the foundation upon which the foundations of our religions and sciences are built.

Would a universal philosophy act as a form of religion or a form of science? No more so than the reasonable concept that we exist, or the reasonable concept that the universe exists, or the reasonable concept that causation, Totality exists.

With the concept of symbiotic panentheism in place, would we ever again terminate, abuse, subjugate, use, dominate, and intimidate… another soul, the journey of God? Probably, but we would never again do so without constantly thinking that we are doing so to God. We never again would do so without reflecting upon what it is we were doing, or what we were letting others do, to another soul.

But ‘never again’ is a long, long time and in spite of symbiotic panentheism’s implication that you and I are pieces of God, it also implies we are limited by our isolation from God and our humanly physical form. With such limitations, does the word never mean the same to us as to the ‘Whole’ Itself? No. The word never to us has the same limitations as the frailties of our own humanness.

‘Never’ under the model is a goal set so high it will ‘never’ be able to be reached, ‘Never’ is an altruistic level of behavior set up as an ideal we ‘always’ try to attain but ‘never’ expect to reach.

With a model of a universal philosophy in place, we would have the understanding to the questions: Where are we? What are we? Why do we exist? As such, we would have a concrete understanding of ‘why’ it is we should show the utmost respect for the individual and the journeys they are taking.

Conclusion: Free Will vs. Determinism
Reason, says everything has a purpose (but why couldn’t something not have a purpose? That may be the case but does it seem reasonable?) Reason would imply: if good is created by us and taken into the whole, into causation, into the whole, so too is evil. The model, symbiotic panentheism, would suggest we, you and I, are responsible for evil. The whole, causation, the whole is not responsible for evil. Just as we can create good, expand the good that occurs within the whole, within causation, within the whole so too can we create evil and likewise we, you and I, take this very concept of evil into the whole, into causation, into the whole, add it to the whole. This is a heavy, heavy burden. Reason would indicate a model such as ‘symbiotic panentheism’ lays more responsibility upon us than we are willing to accept. Responsibility of this magnitude is something we most likely would not be willing to embrace even if it proved to be correct.

This process of developing a universal philosophy is readily accomplished through the processes of ‘bracketing’ and ‘reduction’ developed by Husserl. The only thing left out by Hawking and Husserl was the realization that once we have developed a universal philosophy through bracketing and reduction then we have an obligation to examine the impact such a philosophy would have had, would have, and could have upon past, present, and future generations. If we determine the impact is not what we wish to generate, we can redefine our perceptions in such a manner as to end up with the product, the universal philosophy, which we find acceptable to ourselves as specie.

Reason would indicate it would be much easier for us to create a less serious understanding of ‘intentionality’ as Husserl called it than the model of a universal philosophy created by symbiotic panentheism. A less serious, less demanding type of intentionality explaining why we exist can be created using the same process we used to develop the universal philosophy of symbiotic panentheism. On the other hand we may wish to create a more demanding model. Whatever the case, we must not use the bracketing and reductionism of Husserl to create a universal philosophy and then ignore the impact such a philosophy would have upon ourselves, our specie, our universe, upon what lies beyond the universe itself.

Philosophy now, at the turn of the millennium, takes on its third fundamental principle: