pleromatic garden and substractive schema of abstractions
was thinking about how Carlin dismisses religion, as being a source of stupidity and strife in the world. the "man in the sky" over whom people kill each other as is often repeated. this is but a very parochial notion of empiricism which does not value abstractions. "God is an abstraction, and hence, fighting is pointless!!"
except he is not entirely wrong, if we look at what abstractions are, they are fundamentally deductive. substractive. we substract from the overwhelming entirety of what we encounter to navigate through a charted maze of abstractions put together using schemas we inherit or invent.
therefore our gods have stories, names, faces, temperaments. because they are our schemas made up of our abstractions. we had to take that route to rediscover God while we are already in his kingdom which overwhelms us so, for we are but ephemeral and finite nodes of tension in this exuberant ocean of possibilities at the precipice of bursting on the scene. but that need not be the only way, we all had encountered God before the web of symbols was woven within our depths.
when we open our eyes for first time, it is a revelation of an overwhelming unbearingly full overflowing pleroma. nothing has been substracted yet and there is no schema to put abstractions upon. neither can we say God has “presented” himself to the visitor, nor is it that the visitor "recognizes" God because new visitor has not yet been polarized away from the pleroma by the I-function as an individual entity for a bipolar encounter to be diagrammatized. there is no I and not-I to speak of for the new visitor yet, as all there is, is. and one does not recognize that which has not been differentiated.
with no conception of the not-I, there is no foundation for the first lies, there is no deliberation towards any deception as there is no one to deceive, all there is, is. if all there is, is, there are no games to be played, no factions to be volunteered into and no flags to hoist. no flavor of God to be selected from the menu since the menu itself is an subtraction the visitor has no reason to make. why substract? when everything is already here in haecceity. yes, there is trauma of the birth, and the hunger and the thirst but nothing in contrast to the pleroma's exuberance but as one with it.
the godmen who facilitate the wars in name of abstractions are bamboozled by their own incomplete pathological schemas and have concocted a conspiratorial schema to pit the guests into unrest, to distract from the unresolved faults in lattice of their schematic crystal.
they are bamboozled and the bamboozlers. yet you see the poetry of the god's unfolding where synaptic firing of even such bamboozling godmen also finds its circularity, in that one always meet their end with a return to the pleromatic trance from where they began. the schemas fade away into the abyss as one prepares to depart to there oneself.
there are 2 kinds of theologies: mystical and ontotheological. former being the idea that all individuality has to be dissolved into the divine pleroma. thats the only path to it. psychedelic approach to God. to forget and bracket oneself off.
ontotheological hypertranscendent approach of theology is where God is something entirely beyond the plane of existence which endows the world with "properties" and where the communication with God becomes about economy of these properties because God himself is inaccessible and can only be "appeased" by becoming something or attaining something.
now we do not need to choose one over the other. here the idea of trinity in christianity rescues us. the whole point of the catholic trinity (the father, the son and the holy spirit) is that there is a thing of which there are completely overlapping parts which are not each other, but which nevertheless are each other (in the sense of being the same "I")
the excess of the material world comes out of the fact that nothing is everywhere expressible yet everything is contingent on everything else, that's what that contradiction encodes.
there's more than one interpretation of what a "contradiction" is. it's not an abstract or ontological contradiction, it's a sheffer stroke, a material contradiction as in "these two things are not in the same domain/space", yet "they are of the same exact thing/system".
it's just a model of transcendence == immanence pretty much which is fundamental to catholic theology. the real secret is that it's only an “abstract” contradiction if you take a material contradiction to be universally applicable which is non-sense, since no material contradiction applies the same everywhere.
it's like the difference between abstract "mind" and concrete "body". they are not actually separate at all, yet they may appear differently owing to there being different interpretations over the same body.
the holy spirit is basically the divine interlocutor in that model, while the father and the son are the relationship between what is transcendent (God/the non-discursive, what exists even outside of what can intelligibly be placed into collections) and what is immanent (the son, the discursive, the one who inside time works to cleanse us of sin).
and none of those are God because they are all like filters over the total structure of God, nor are they each other because they are different filters, but yet they are all embodied within, subsist within and pervasive within God. it's kind of like an object with filters that are also automorphisms in mathematical terms.