Pandeism and Pangaea

Early in 2016, an interesting confluence occurred. As I was kicking around Kickstarter, I happened wholly by chance to come across a newly initiated effort for a collection of fictional pieces: Pangaea II. The "II" signifies the status of being a sequel to a previous similarly themed collection. And "Pangaea" because it is set in a fictional alternate reality -- one with a fascinating premise wherein Earth's landmasses are not dispersed, but where instead all human history occurs on a continuing single supercontinent. But the thing which to me was mindblowing about this is that this Pangaea Anthology was coincidentally proceeding on Kickstarter at precisely the same time as the (ultimately equally successful) Kickstarter was plugging away for Pandeism: An Anthology.

The conceptual connection between Pandeism and Pangaea goes beyond this moment of coincidence, and beyond the fact that their names raise similar visions -- "Pan" in both meaning all; "Deism" and "Gaia" both channeling religion-laden words from ancient languages. When mankind first discovered the contours of the multiple continents, the assumption instantly arose that these were indelible features, markers of the state of the Earth from the time of its creation onward. Mountains were fixed and unchangeable. Seas might ebb and flow, but only within unchanging boundaries with reliable shorelines. But then, as the work of geologists uncovered scientific proof that the continents had drifted from different positions over millions of years, had stretched and bent and changed in shape, have been governed by tectonic features and eons of weathering, the first instinct of the religionists was to reject this geomorphic evolution. It was inconceivable to them that these land masses could possibly have come from a single great landmass with an holistic shape different from any of the modern ones, but encompassing all of them. This was Pangaea.

In much the same way, the concept of Pandeism challenges previous orthodoxies by presenting as a possibility a single underlying theological ideation whose ancient contours are not immediately apparent to those who examine the theological map of the world through the lens of later social conditioning. But, like the geomorphic principles hinting at different earthly constructions, these may be found by rational examination to be fully explanatory as to how the later, more familiar peaks and valleys of theistic doctrine arose. Both are relatively recent discoveries, in the scheme of there fields -- after thousands of years of theology and geology, Pandeism was named in 1787, and Pangaea in 1920. One might quibble that the theories of the ancients about the nature of the grand features of the physical world wasn't really 'geology' -- but then, might one not suppose the same thing about ancient theology? The going belief a thousand or twelve hundred years ago was that the Earth had edges off which one might fall. Might one fall off the edges of equally old theological models?

And might one, in discovering the spherical nature of the Earth and the mobility of its once-joined continents, envision a notion of the divine of mathematical elegance equal to a sphere, and historical power equal to continents gliding over the face of the world?

Alan Watts Sums Up Pandeism In One Minute

"Every living being is a manifestation of everything that there is.... Crazy!! But the thing is that what we do is to try and prevent people from realizing that this is so.... by pointing out to them in the most subtle ways their limitations. And seeing if we can phase them. Make them uncertain, make them unsteady. It's like all sorts of games you can play where if a person wavers, he loses. But people play that with each other all the time. And the reason they do it is not the reason they think. It is that if everybody were perfectly clear that they were a manifestation of the divine being, nothing very much would happen!!" ~~Alan Watts

Pandeism: An Anthology, Volume II, coming together!!

This is just a mockup cover for Pandeism: An Anthology, Volume II, but the whole will come to fruition (with a real cover) soon enough!! We have in hand fifteen quite amazing pieces, ready to edit and arrange into the final whole!!

One of the central themes being explored in this book will be the multiple-sided connection between Pandeism and human creativity. Additionally, new comparative pieces for this book include examinations of Pandeism from the viewpoints of Judaism and Stoicism.

Antonin Tuynman's awesome Kickstarter vid!!

My good friend and brilliant writer Antonin Tuynman (whose Technovedanta 2.0 I reviewed here last month) is running a Kickstarter for his forthcoming book, Is Intelligence An Algorithm? -- definitely worthy of support!!



Check out his Kickstarter vid and support his campaign....

Technovedanta 2.0 -- a review

Technically, this book is titled “Transcendental Metaphysics of Pancomputational Panpsychism,” but the top lip of the cover reads “Technovedanta 2.0.”

Firstly, I note that, after my own heart, author Antonin Tuynman suffuses his work with poetry -- I have especially fallen in love with one titled “The Quagmire of ontological disambiguation” -- this is a poem I intend to pursue, even!!

But moving to the heart of the work, the fundamental thought underlying this rich volume is the possible nature of our Universe as a sort of self-aware cosmic computer -- in a way that scientifically (if not strictly technologically) completes the circle of Vedic thought. The savvy reader might well wonder, by the way, why I am beginning with what is actually the second book in a series. This is Kismet. Pure chance. An arbitrary function of this title happening to appeal to me (as a pandeistic thinker) before I saw any others.

The author speaks with an expansive and lively vocabulary and conceptual fluency of thoughts that reflect what has rattled around in my own mind for some while -- of philosophizing, of mastery arising from the will to become a master, of the remarkable premise that Consciousness itself arises from a self-sustaining feedback loop. He gamely coins the term Infinityism to frame the conceptual boundaries of the inconceivable, preferring to refer to God as “transfinite,” a term which he notes was yet undefined when the religions were casting their conceptions of the Divine. He identifies the many (and growing) routes by which we are ever-increasingly bound by expressions of a collective subconscious, which is itself but one aspect of an all-encompassing underlying consciousness. To those familiar with the post-Enlightenment idea of Pandeism, I need not spell out the significance of this line of thought to that theory.

Tuynman draws from a diverse array of philosophical forbears, from Hegel to Alfred North Whitehead to Buckminster Fuller to Terrance McKenna -- not all of whom are recognized as philosophers (he titles Ray Kurzweil and Peter Diamandis, for example, as "contemporary technoprophets"), but all of whom can be recognized as such when their observations are set in Tuynman's grand context. His analysis of the autopoietic is auto-poetic (just as his poetry is profoundly analytic). It feels as if he is consistently pulling the covers of reality back to reveal intuitively realized mechanisms of our Universe from the most modern concepts of science, and then tying these back, again and again, to some of the most ancient philosophical ideas. He does not blur the lines between these frames of thought; he demonstrates that the lines are an illusion, a construct dissolved simply by turning to observe from a different angle.

Like the courses of an excellent meal, getting deeper and deeper into this book makes you feel fuller and fuller of useful information, and yet it is tasty enough that though you finish feeling satisfied, yet knowing you could have another plate of the same again tomorrow.

Fried Philosophy 14: Pandeism

Following is a fascinating explication of the problem of evil, and Pandeism as the solution to it -- this guy gets it!!

A thought on Pandeism and the Jefferson Bible

Thomas Jefferson famously carved out the supernatural passages of the Bible to retain it as a book of superstition-free moral advice -- and one which happens to, to a great degree, simply repackage moral adages previously presented in a wide range of other systems, such as the Vedas of Hinduism, and the Teachings of the Buddha in the East, and the West's doctrines of Atenism, Code of Hammurabi, Epic of Gilgamesh, and Fables of Aesop. The moral authority of ALL scripture, Pandeism explains, derives from each touching on the mind of a single underlying Creator. Blessings!!

Everything -- a truly Pandeistic game!!

"If everybody were perfectly clear that

they were a manifestation of the divine being,

nothing very much would happen."

~ Alan Watts

One might think it quite difficult, if not impossible, to create a video game exemplifying the fundamental propositions of the theological theory of Pandeism -- but here it has been done!!

-- with a game fittingly titled "Everything" and containing commentary culled from the astounding pandeistic observations of Alan Watts. And--as one might not be surprised to learn from a game called "Everything"--you, the player, are able to play as literally anything in the Universe of the game. As a proton; as a pebble; as a piano; as a planet; and beyond, puzzling through challenges to be able to jump back and forth at different levels of magnitude and magnanimity.



The diversity of interactions is infinite, but the lesson is ultimate -- that there is no greater game than being and existing and experiencing as everything there is.



And that's it, that's Everything.

Alternatives to Theism

While I would dispute this gentleman's characterization of Pandeism, I am glad to see the subject being spoken of in wider and wider circles!!

Pandeism: An Anthology, page 63....

Pandeism: An Anthology, page 63, from "The Idealist Interpretation of Pandeism" by rising star of philosophy Bernardo Kastrup.

Pandeism: An Anthology; page 23....

Pandeism: An Anthology -- The London Launch

Pandeism: An Anthology

The London Launch

Thursday, March 30, 2017, at 6:30 PM

Watkins Books near Leicester Square

----

A Pandeist responds to PB

PB writes:

I agree with pandeistic thought when it posits that both an infinite or all-encompassing Being and a plurality of beings cannot exist simultaneously. There cannot be an all-encompassing Being + beings. The existence of beings obliterates the all-encompassing nature of a hypothetical original Being. Thus, there is either an all-encompassing Being or beings, but not both simultaneously, as each negates the possibility of the existence of the other. We know that beings exist but do not whether an original singular all-encompassing being ever existed. If it did, it transformed from a singular being (the One) into the plurality of beings (the Many). This mechanics of this transformation are inherently problematic because an all-encompassing being would be incapable of consciousness, and therefore experience. An all-encompassing being would be categorically unconscious. Therefore, the question remains as to the cause of the transition from singular to multitudinous being. It could not be any intention or conscious motivation, as an all-encompassing being is devoid of consciousness.

An infinite, all-encompassing, or singularly existing conscious being is a self-negating contradiction. If a being is all-that-exists, it will experience absolutely nothing. Experience is predicated upon at least an operative distinction between an experient and some content of experience, i.e, knower and known. Without perception there is no experience. Perception cannot arise without some form of distinction: a point-of-perspective, for lack of a better phrase. If consciousness is continuous and distributed evenly throughout all being, the net result is, paradoxically, the loss of consciousness. The distinction required for the arising of consciousness, and any distinction at all, would be absent in an all-encompassing being. Consciousness must somehow be separate in order for experience to exist. 

In short, perspectival limitation is required for the existence of consciousness and experience (incidentally, consciousness and experience are always coexisting, if not synonymous). Perspectival limitation also explains the existence of suffering and what we have historically termed "evil". These, contrary to the speculations of pandeism, are not purposed as part of God's experience of not-God. Rather, "evil"/suffering are the inevitable and ineliminable consequence of the limitation required for the existence of consciousness. Suffering is, quite simply, a byproduct of being conscious. There is no conscious experience without suffering or its immediate possibility. As such, there is no state or form of existence free of pain and suffering. Existence is not progressing towards any manner of "heaven". The real distinction is not between a painful existence and a heavenly one, but between being (with its concomitant misery) or nothingness. There is no other alternative. 

Explained as a sequence: 

• The phenomena of experience is dependent upon the phenomena of consciousness.

• Consciousness arises through localization, or perspective.

• Perspective necessitates differentiation (i.e., individuation). 

• Individuation equates to limitation. 

• Limitation necessarily entails vulnerability.

• Vulnerability invariably leads to suffering and what humanity has identified as "evil"(i.e., outcomes that are neither advantageous nor experientially pleasant to a subjective sentient being).

These observations have led to some interesting realizations: (1) the ultimate and original nature of Being does not include consciousness but the nothingness of unconsciousness, (2) the arising of consciousness is necessitated by perspectival distinction (limitation), and (3) that what we designate with the term "evil" and the resultant experiential suffering is, in fact, eternal. Suffering is an ineliminable by-product of experiential being.  To experientially exist is to suffer, in some form and degree or another.

----

I am delighted to receive such a thorough comment to address.

Firstly, let us discuss the experiential nature of existing as an all-encompassing being in a pre-Universal state. Naturally, such a being does not experience actual distinctions, as none have yet come into being for it to distinguish. But this does not mean that it would be impossible for such a being to hypothesize potential distinctions. At the least, if it is aware that it exists at all, it might surmise that an alternative position -- non-existence -- is possible as well. If it is aware of its all-encompassing nature, it might similarly be aware that a less-than all-encompassing nature is likewise an alternate possibility. Both of these positions presuppose awareness, which is itself a precondition to any action which is not purely instinctual (and it is hard to conceive of purely instinctual action leading to so productive thing as our life-bearing Universe.

But, of especial interest, in this context, Pandeism has never been a philosophy which requires absolutes and infinitudes. In the sense raised by noted process philosopher Charles Hartshorne, one may envision the Creator being relatively all-encompassing -- being all-encompassing as to all that actually is, even if not all that can conceptually be, and even if all that is is itself imperfect. Such a being would be inconceivably great, but not infinitely or absolutely so. It would be, perhaps, closer to perfection than anything else we may be able to model or conceive, but would not be an example of perfection itself. (And, indeed, there may be no such thing as "perfection" to be achieved.)

And indeed, the existence of our Universe, if created, is an indisputable indication that our Creator was motivated to effect a change in its situation -- and not just motivated to contemplate a change or plan a change and consider whether to implement it, but as a putatively all-encompassing being absolutely and irresistibly motivated to change. I have written in the past that the compulsion for the Creator to become the Creation and so to obtain existential experience and experiential existence must be a powerful one, perhaps irresistible, like a hunger so intense that it compels the body to digest itself to feed that hunger. And that would indeed be characterizable as a state of suffering.

Now whether we class this suffering as an "evil" seems to be a matter of interpretation.

The 2017 Pandeism Collegiate Writing Competition

The 2017 Pandeism Collegiate Writing Competition is now underway. This competition is open to all persons who are undergraduate and graduate collegiate students of philosophy, theology, religious studies, social sciences, arts, literature, applied sciences, or comparable disciplines, at any time during the period during which the contest is being held.
​​

Students who wish to enter this competition must submit an article presenting original thought in exploring implications of the modern theological theory of Pandeism (pantheistic Deism, belief in a Creator wholly becoming our Universe, proposed to be discernible by application of logic and reason). Papers written for course credit are acceptable. Submissions do not need to take a position in favor of or opposed to Pandeism as a theory, but must present original thought about its relative possibility, relation to other areas of theology, or implications for areas such as epistemology, ethics and morality, or science. Submissions must be a minimum of 3,000 words and a maximum of 6,000 words. Only one (1) article may be submitted by each student.

The deadline to enter the contest is Friday, June 9, 2017, at 5:00 PM PST (8:00 PM EST). Articles may be submitted at any time prior to this deadline, but no submissions will be reviewed until after the deadline has passed. Submissions must be sent by email to Pandeism.Anthology@gmail.com, as Microsoft Word documents attached to an email identifying the name of the applicant, electronic and telephonic means of contacting the applicant, and the college or university attended by the applicant. There are no fees or other conditions for entry.
​
Students who wish to enter this competition must submit an article presenting original thought in exploring implications of the modern theological theory of Pandeism (pantheistic Deism, belief in a Creator wholly becoming our Universe, proposed to be discernible by application of logic and reason). Papers written for course credit are acceptable. Submissions do not need to take a position in favor of or opposed to Pandeism as a theory, but must present original thought about its relative possibility, relation to other areas of theology, or implications for areas such as epistemology, ethics and morality, or science. Submissions must be a minimum of 3,000 words and a maximum of 6,000 words. Only one (1) article may be submitted by each student.

The deadline to enter the contest is Friday, June 9, 2017, at 5:00 PM PST (8:00 PM EST). Articles may be submitted at any time prior to this deadline, but no submissions will be reviewed until after the deadline has passed. Submissions must be sent by email to Pandeism.Anthology@gmail.com, as Microsoft Word documents attached to an email identifying the name of the applicant, electronic and telephonic means of contacting the applicant, and the college or university attended by the applicant. There are no fees or other conditions for entry.

One (1) grand prize winner will be honored by:

• publication of the winning article in Pandeism: An Anthology, Volume II, a collection of articles by leading authors in various fields, to be published by John Hunt Publishing Ltd, forthcoming in 2018;
• two (2) print copies of Pandeism: An Anthology, Volume II containing the winning submission; and
• a monetary prize in the amount of $250, to be conveyed in the form of an Amazon.com gift card.

Transmission of the prize may be provided electronically or by mail. The winner will be contacted to determine their preferred method of delivery.

Entrants, as a condition of entry, grant Sponsors a perpetual right to republish any submission, in whole or part, and release Sponsors, any prize provider in this contest, and any related entities from liability for damages of any kind sustained through participation in this contest and/or use of any prize. Entrants, as a condition of entry, further authorize Sponsors to republish their submission, in print or electronically. However, entrants retain ownership of their submission for all other purposes, and may republish them in any other venue or manner, at any time.

Sponsors will judge all entries, and the decisions of the judges are final. The judges may choose no grand prize winner for the competition if they find no submission that, in their estimation, merits this award. The winning entry will be announced Friday, July 7, 2017 on this website, and winners will be contacted directly through the email address that they have provided.

In addition to the grand prize winner, other submissions of high quality may be honored by publication in Pandeism: An Anthology, Volume II, as space permits. Competition sponsors may additionally choose to publish any submissions as part of a future anthology, or as part of a wholly electronic supplement to this or another printed publication.

Inquiries with respect to this contest may be directed to Pandeism.Anthology@gmail.com, or to the Twitter Pandeism account, @Pandeism.