GENIUS FORUMS

Chapter I. The Builder and the Plan
We are told that Jesus of Nazareth was the son of a carpenter. A carpenter is a builder, and his work of building must be according to prior plan. The Son of the carpenter was the builder of the divine character, hence the helper, mediator, revelator, and example for others; a needed stimulus in their efforts to conform to the Original Desing, unfolded to their vision by both his precept and his example. That Original Design is, and must be, to-day what it was in the days of the Nazarene, changless throughout all future days.
Every Child born into the world is the Onlooker that is the possible discoverer of the Plan, the Original Design antedating all he sees. He is to be a builder, carrying out that Design in his own person. He is to build character till the Original Design is incarnated in him as the Living Plan. This destiny awaits each new member of the human race. It follows, then, that discovery of the Original Design is the first step toward the fulfillment of that destiny.

Chapter II. The Steadfastness of Nature
We say that Nature is steadfast. Her processes can be anticipated because she is steadfast. Sunset is followed by sunrise, summer succeeds spring and is followed by autumn and winter. This steadfast order can be counted upon, and the harvest confidently expected after seed-sowing.
There can be no Science of Being and Existence except there be a compelling Principle. The steadfastness of Nature must be due to a compelling Principle. No one, past or present, makes an apple-tree grow from apple-seed though such growth can be confidently relied upon. This reliance would be misplaced did any one possessing the power of choice cause a seed to produce after its own kind; for the it could be made to produce after another kind.
Because principle and not choice determines result, the result can be anticipated, known before its arrival. For one who can choose there is more than one way in which to act. For principle there is only one way. How principle will act, therefore, can be accurately determined. How the possessor of the power of choice will act is always open to conjecture, and certainty is impossible.
It is the difference between the personal and the impersonal. Nature is impersonal, her governing Principle is impersonal, and the personal delver into her mysteries must find the impersonal if he would be successful. The variety in Nature must be the relativity of parts in a continuous whole.
Where there is relativity there is order; where there is order there is design; where there is design there is that which compels it. To follow the order and understand the design it is neccessary to trace it from the basis of governing principle, working deductively. THe proposition, then, upon which the formulation in statement of the Science of Being and Existence is based, is-The origin of creation is without power of choice; hence is impersonal.

Remarks on Chapter II
Try to put from you for the moment, so that you may be able to reason clearly, your inherited view of God. Do not, first, make effort to reconcile this inherited view with the statement "God is Principle." In order to understand what this premise involves and compels, it is necessary to concentrate the attention upon it. Do not divide the attention with previous opinions in the effort to make the premise confirm your opinion.
Truth, rather than such confirmation, should be the desire. Give yourself wholly to the consideration of what this statement means and compels. As the order unfolds to you a reconciliation may be found that is not seen at first. Shut out all traditional teaching for the moment and endeavor to answer these questions from the basis of logic.
The only standard of comparison for you, if you as a student seek to understand the statements of the Sicence of Being, is the premise from which they are deduced as conclusions. Observe carefully and see if they are in logical agreement with the premise, following carefully step by step as they are reached one after another, taking care not to jump forward in your own thought beyond the stage of the argument that is for immediate consideration.
Discipline your attention and mental activity, postponing final judgment till the argument is concluded.

Chapter III. The Nature of Principle
Principle is that which stands forever beyond the limitations of desire or intention. Its product is that which is compelled by the nature of Principle. Its product would be, therefore, the creation of which it was the creator, and this product would be steadfast and changeless because the nature of Principle, not any desire, wish, or intention, compelled.

Chapter V.
Factors in the Eternal Order
A sequential order compels factors having an undeviating relation to each other. Nature's factors must have each its own place, and be incapable of transposition or change.
Each fundamental factor must be a supreme genus, under which may belong its variety or species, over which can be no higher genus in its own domain.
These factors, each, in its domain, a supreme genus, may be considered, first, as three in number, viz., Expression, Representation and Manifestation.
To express--To put forth.
To represent--To put forth anew, or a second time.
To manifest--To make plain, clear, visible, obvious to understanding.--(Dictionary.)
Expression is what is first put forth. Representation is what is subsequently put forth. Manifestation is the visibility of that which precedes it. To be full and complete, Manifestation must include the visibility of Representation, Expression and the governing Principle that puts forth.
The enumeration compelled by the nature of causative Principle, is, first, the Expression of the Principle, then Re-presentation, and last the Manifestation of all.
Creation, considered as the unity of these fundamental factors, is a trinity in unity, eternal and unvarying, each factor equally eternal and unvarying in nature and order. Creation must be, therefore, stable, its governing Principle always the same.

Remarks.
Study carefully the meaning of the terms used in this chapter, as it is given in the Dictionary. This meaning will be adhered to throughout the argument, will be carried along as the argument develops, and you will see more and more its application at subsequent stages.
Never confound one of these factors with another. Never think it does not matter if you use either of the three terms indiscriminately. Loose thinking leads to inaccurate speech. With inaccurate speech there can be no statement of a science. Never say "manifestation" when you mean "expression" or "representation." Think clearly, grasping the meaning of each term, and seeing the difference, yet relatedness, between the tree factors. Insecurity in a foundation leads to the insecurity of what is built upon it.

Chapter VI.
Illustration.
The nature of the unit is the governing principle of the Science of Numbers. Without this principle there owuld be no such science; with it, this science is the result that is compelled, not by choice, but by logical necessity.
The nature of the unit cannot change, for the unit can not exercise the power of choice. It is impersonal in nature and is therefore always to be depended upon. Hence the Science of Numbers is exact science, positive truth. The unit always has been, and always wil be, the sum of its parts. NO one ever made it so, no one will ever unmake it. The unit is the same yesterday, to-day, and forever.
The nature of the unit is the governing principle that holds together the whole Science of Numbers, and affords the differing fundamentals, with their relativity and order, that are therein contained. This order is constant because of its changeless governing principle; and the discovery of this principle is necessary to the making of a mathematician.
In connection with the Science of Numbers we may find Expression, Representation and Manifestation. Abstract Number is the expression--of Number; and the nature of Number, its manifold possibilities, its relation to its governing principle, made visible, become obvious, is the manifestation.
The Science of Numbers is a parallel to the Science of Being. As abstract truth it is dead, so far as practical value is concerned. Only a discoverer can bring it to light, resurrecting it from the dead. By means of discovery and application the nature and possibilities of Number have a pratical value not before existent.
The discoverer, therefore, stands between Representation and Manifestation. Without a recognizer there can be no recognition, no obviousness. An onlooker is a logical necessity. To the onlooker manifestation is made.
The beginner in the study of mathematics is the possible discoverer of all pertaining to mathematics, the possible master of all mathematical problems. Only as discoverer of that which persistently, therfore eternally, is, can he become master of what is presented to him by that order. He changes, can change, nothing that is fudamental; but all that is fudamental he can find and follow into and through all possible combinations.
This possibility is latent in him as the beginner. Its development is his growth from beginner to expert mathematician. This growth is the bringing forth of what is inherent. All change is to him.
The unit and what it compels is unchanged through all. The fundamental order, each factor in that order, the principle that compels and governs it, are the same, whether he be beginner or expert; therefore, given inherent capacity, it is possible for him to become the expert, as would not be the case were that order capable of change; were its factors susceptible of alteration.

Chapter VII.
The Onlooker and the Possible Discoverer.
If ther ebe a questioner there must be an onlooker for Creation who sees something that stimulates questioning.
I am, I see what I call the world, what to me is Nature. What is it and what am I?
Here is the onlooker, the questioner, the seeker, the beginner. All is resolved into "I" and the "not-I"; the looker-on and that which is seen.
Following the parallelism of the Science of Numbers, this beginner stands before Representation awaiting Manifestation. He looks upon Figure and awaits the manifestation of Number and its governing Principle.
AS beginner the capacity to become an expert is latent in him. This capacity is to develop, and the development will constitute his growth. This growth will be change to him, but not change in the fundamental order and its factors that constitutes Creation.
This logical necessity that is the truth of Creation is dead to him, but his own development is to resurrect it from the dead, bringing it to light.
What Creation is in itself, because of its governing Principle, is unknown to him and has no practical value. It will have practical value only to the discoverer who finds and applies its truth.
The beginner preceds the discoverer. As the human soul he stands before the World that is Representation or Figure.
Figure, as a genus, has many kinds, many figures as species; but as genus Figure is always Figure. No matter what the variety of species it never becomes any thing else. There is figure 2, figure 3, figure 4, etc.; these figures differ from each other but the genus is fundamental and can not change.
The human soul as the Onlooker sees the World and the various shapes-figures-it contains, mountains, rocks, rivers, trees, plants and numberless moving creatures.
The natural shapes, those whose aggregate makes up visible Nature, engage the attention of the Onlooker. What are they? is the question that naturally arises. "Whatever they are, this is all there is," would be the natural reply, for this aggregate is all that is visible to the beginner.
The beginner in the Science of Numbers looks upon a blackboard with figures. He stands before this Representation awaiting possible Manifestation.
He is to find that which is represented and also its governing principle, but to him, as he stands, making his beginning, the blackboard and its numerous shapes is all there is. He is told of Numbers, but he does not yet see Number; he sees only blackboard and figures. What he woul dcall the evidence of his senses contradicts what he is told. He is onlooker without being discoverer. Discovery is to come.
Experience follows upon the evidence of his senses and in time he discerns what, as the beginner, he did not see; and because Figure was the veil hiding Number. Looking at Figure and discerning Number he makes the discovery that Figure is representative of Number; and that, as Representation, it is proof of the existence of Number; for if there be a representative there must be something to be represented.
Discovery multiplies and he is on the way to become the expert mathematician, for this way leads in, deeper and deeper into that fundamental changeless order compelled by governing principle. As he follows it leads him in, away from what he first naturally looked upon. It leads him from mere shapes to what is represented by those shapes; to numbers, their values, their possible combinations and applications. From the without to the within he follows on, change to him all the way, but no change in that which he discovers.
The human soul stands before that great blackboard, the World, and sees the various figures upon it, some stationary, some moving about. "This is all there is" is his verdict, for this is sense evidence and true to him. Representation is all he sees, for it constitutes the visible World.
He has experience, and through experience his inherent capacity to discern is quickened. It is this capacity that makes of the onlooker, the discoverer. When he discerns that Expression of Principle is as Number, and he sees the visible World as its Representation, or as the Figure containing all figures, he is on the way to become an expert in the Science of Being; the way that leads in, deeper and deeper into that fundamental changeless order compelled by what God is.

Remarks.
Try to trace the parallel between the Science of Numbers and the Science of Being. Each is abstract truth, the eternal. Neither can become more than it eternally is, both can become more and more to you. Each has its fixed fundamentals, fixed because compellied by the nature of their governing principle. To discern, understand and use these fundamentals is the necessity for you. The nature, changelessness and power of the impersonal must be sought and followed if you would gain the manifestation that gives power and authority.
Discriminate clearly between the seen and the unseen, the REpresentation and Expression. Never confuse, or seek to mingle the two. Stand, as it were, with your back to the Expression and, naturally, Representation will be before your face. You will look upon it, but there are two ways to see what is behind you.
You may turn your back upon Representation and then Expression will confront you, but to see also the relation of one to the other is a necessity. To turn first in one direction and then the other is to have the eye upon one at a time, never upon both at the same time, and this leads to perplexity and confusion.
But if, instead, while your face is toward Representation, the natural position, you become able to see through yourself, you will always have both factors within range at the same time. You will see both what stands in front of you and what stands behind you. Then the relation of one to the other will be more apparent, and the principle governing the relation more readily found.
At the same time you will be both looker-on and discoverer, seeing both visible and invisible.

Chapter IX.
Creation is Logical Necessity.
Absolute.-Free from restriction, unconditional; fixed, determined, irrevocable; not comparative; opposed to relative; certain, infallible; ultimate; not derived from anything else.
Relative.-Not absolute or existing by itself; considered as belonging to or respecting something else; depending on or incident to relation. (Dictionary.)
Creation is compelled by what God is as Principle. It is not permitted to be by a power that could destroy as well as originate it. Back of any and all relative or immediate causes is the remote Cause of these causes, itself causeless as everoperative Principle.
From this Principle must come the sequence that is logical necessity and this sequence will constitute the Creation of the Creator.
When we have formed our highest idea of God this conception will fall short unless we have ascended, or penetrated, to the impersonal; for back of every thing must be that which is no thing, the impersonal Principle whose nature compels Expression, Representation and Manifestation.
In order to give a definite nature to each of these factors, terms that give a definite nature to Principle are necessary.
We define the impersonal First Cause as
Spirit,
Life,
Love,
Intelligence,
Substance,
Mind.
These terms are synonymous in meaning. Each is the one impersonal Principle that is the First Cause of Creation and all it contains. God is Spirit,
or
Life,
or
Love,
or
Intelligence,
or
Substance,
or
Mind.
With "or" read also "and." God is all these and yet there is but on God, one Absolute. There is but on absolute Spirit, one absolute Life, one absolute Love, one absolute Intelligence, one absolute Substance, one asbolute Mind; but Creation must include the variety that is consequent upon the nature of the one Absolute.
God is the absolute Substance, for the First Cause as governing Principle is that which stands under and supports Creation and all it contains.
"Sub-stands under."
This Substance that is God is not measurable by our human standards of weight or extent, but is measurable only by Expression, Representation and Manifestation; is known only by knowing these eternal three. Wherever one is, whatever one sees, however great, even stupendous, the variety outspread, however overawing its immensity, all is resolvable into these three fundamental factors, back of which is the Substance-Principle that holds them forever in their relative order.
Three in one, three in that unity which is the one Creation-analysis brings us face to face with this trinity at last, and compels us to recognize its Principle. There is but one God, one Absolute; of this truth we must never lose sight, or depart from it in deduction. The nature of the unit is one whole, it must be followed in the attempt to solve all problems.
In the Science of Being, God is not "a" any thing whatever; God is the only One. From this premise logical deduction brings us to conclusions that agree with and confirm it. If these conclusions are verified by modern science and human experience, they become actually, as well as logically, true.

Remarks.
In tracing the nature of, and relation between, Creator and Creation, also the nature of, and relation between, the three fundamental factors constituting Creation, do not forget or overlook the definition of the terms "absolute" and "relative." The definition must be maintained and followed throughout the argument for the remote conclusions to be found in harmony with the premise.
Ponder well the meaning and application of each term. Mastery of the terminology is essential to grasp of the conclusions, to decision as to their logical or illogical character. The argument must be built step by step, each step depending upon its predecessor for its place and truth.
You will see that the Absolute is dependent upon nothing for what it is. Were it dependent it could not be absolute. Apply this definition to God and you will see that God is dependent upon nothing for what God is as First Cause; that all idea of relativity on the part of God is a mistaken idea. That which is not GOd is relative to God, necessarily, and, as necessarily, God is absolute to all.
Were there no Expression, Representation, or Manifestation, God would remain the same absolute One; but without those factors the absolute One would remain forever unknown.

Chapter X.
Expression.
Cause involves Effect. In the nature of the cuase its own effect or product lies hidden. There is nothing outside First Cause. It is the circumference that bounds all. Outside it is nothing, in it is every thing; not as a small thing is contained in a larger thing, but as the potentiality without which nothing would be existent. The essence of every living thing, however many intervening causes we may think we trace, is in First Cause.
Whatever is put forth by this Cause, expresses it. However much may be put forth, the Expression will be the sum of what is put forth. An expression will be far less than the Expression. The Expression constitutes the head of Genus under which belongs all expressions, all the variety that is put forth.
As the unit contains its own fractions, so this supreme Genus contains a variety of lesser expressions of the same Cause. These must be related to the Expression as fractions are related to their sum, the unit.
We consider, first, the Genus, reaching classification under this head farther on.
As it will be readily seen that Effect is involved in Cause and is put forth by it, and as put forth it is the Expression of its producing Cause, it remains to define the nature of the Expression.
Likeness, with difference, between Cause and Effect is a logical necessity. Cause and Effect must be like unto, and yet different from, each other. Were there not difference between them they would be identical. Then there would be more than one God, more than one Absolute.
Like, and yet different. This must always be remembered in considering the nature of, and relation between, Cause and Effect. The nature of the Effect must be according to, or like, the nature of the Cause, with that difference that keeps it distinct from its Cause, preserving its identity.
According to this logical necessity we define the nature of the Expression as follows:
Cause. Effect.
Principle, Expression.
Spirit, Spiritual.
Life, Living.
Love, Loving.
Intelligence, Intelligent.
Substance, Substantial.
The expression of Spirit is the Spiritual. The expression of LIfe is the Living. The expression of Love is the Loving. The expression of Intelligence is the Intelligent. The expression of Substance is the Substantial.
If God, as First Cause, the governing Principle of Creation, be what is here defined, then the direct Effect or full Expression of God is also what is here defined.
The Effect is Substantial and Intelligent, Living and Loving, because the nature, not the wish, of its Cause compels.
Man is "the image of God" because Man, as the Effect of his Cause, is the Expression of God; and, as this Effect or Expression, Man must be like unto, yet different from, God.
Man's relation to GOd is a logical relation and not one that is permitted and could be changed. Because it is the logical relation inherent in the nature of Cause and Effect, it is an eternal relation.
On this point the Science of Being gives certainty where other teachings have given a hope.
Man's difference from God will compel certain results; his likeness to God will compel certain other resultus.
Man, the Expression, one of the fundamental factors in Creation, is the Supreme Genus that never can change as long as his Cause remains changeless. And as Principle can not change but is that which, by the necessity of its own nature, is incapable of change, this Supreme Genus is forever the same; always the spiritual, living, loving, intelligent, substantial unit that "images" God.
Think always of the word "image" as meaning "expression" and not an outlined shape or form. This is its meaning as it is used in Genesis.
The supreme Genus, Man, is the substantial being, because changless. His relation to this source compels his substantiality that is not weighed or measured according to common standards, but is discerened through logic. The supreme Genus, Man, is the changeless, eternal Expression of God, like unto, yet different from his Cause.
The article "the" alone, not "a" or "an," is applicable to him. He has no plural, for he is the sum of what is put forth by Cause-the one full and complete Expression, the first factor in the trinity that constitutes Creation.

Remarks.
Try to see that a difference in nature between Cause and Effect does not mean that the Effect is in any wise foreign to the Cause; that the Effect is antagonistic to the Cause. This is a mistake easily made when on thinks of "difference."
Difference prevents identicalness and Man's difference from God preserves Man's identity and God's absoluteness, while Man's likeness to God gives definiteness to his nature and preserves his unity with God. Were there no difference God and Man would be just the same. Were there no likeness there could be no unity between them.
As we go on we shall see that though the difference be eternal, the unity that is also eternal gives possibilities mighty in their results. If the argument seems but cold dry reasoning, remember that truth is impersonal whatever your particular bias or trend; and the more you can get away from that bias, standing outside your feelings as it were, the more clearly you will be able to see the everlasting foundation that supports the structure of your daily life.

Chapter XI.
Active and Passive Aspects of First Cause.
If Cause puts forth its Effect or Expression, the putting forth, the Action, must have place in the sequence compelled by the nature of First Cause. Having considered what this Cause is, and what its Expression in consequence, we must next consider what this Cause does. First, the passive aspect-what God is; then the active aspect-what God does.
In the Science of Being both aspects have place, and results, differing in kind, can be traced tot hem. What First Cause is, compels one result. What First Cause does, compels another result; and logica shows that these results must be like unto, yet different from, each other, and in unity with each other.
Cause must act, or be operative. The nature of Cause compels. The action of First Cause must be the Primal Energy, the first Force or Motion; first in the order of enumeration that is compelled by logical sequence from Principle.
The putting forth, the Motion, Primal Energy, Force, must be the link connecting Effect with its Cause.
A chain of sequence is composed of links. If these links become separated from each other there is no chain, even though the links are the same in themselves, either when connected or apart. Though the links do not change, the existence of the chain depends upon their connection.
The Science of Being must show the chain of mutually dependent links, compelled by the nature of the beginning of the chain-First Cause.
The chain begins at First Cause; the first link is the Motion of that Cause, the putting forth that gives the second link as that which is put forth.
Substance and Motion precede all things. All things-Creation and all it contains-are the consequence of Substance and Motion, and are compelled, not permitted.
Cause. Effect.
Beginning. { Principle. Expression. } Supreme.
Original sub- {Spirit. Spiritual. } Genus.
stance. {Life. Living. }
{Love. Loving. }
That which {Intelligence. Intelligent. } That which is
puts forth. {Substance. Substantial .} put forth.
{Mind. Idea. }
\ /
\ /
\ /
\ /
\ /
\ /
\ /
\ /
\ /
\ /
\ /
\ /
\ /
Motion.
Primal Energy.
The Putting Forth.
Force.

Clear discrimination between Substance and Motion, the passive and active aspect of the Beginning which is God, will find each link in the chain of sequence that is compelled by the nature of its Beginning, and reveal the impersonal Science of Being hidden behind our limited personal consciousness. In itself, or impersonally, the chain is perfect and complete; to our personal consciousness there are a few links but no chain. Logic, therefore, not personal sense, must be the guide to discovery.
Remarks.
Clear perception of the active aspect of Cause, as well as of the difference between the active and the passive aspects, is essential to the understanding of future conclusion. It is the difference between being, and doing; a difference that obtains throughout Creation, and especially with the worker of the problems of existence. It is a difference all-important when the principles of the Science of Being are practically applied, especially in the direction of what is called "healing." As you desire, probably, to heal and be healed, seek to understand the principles that yield this result when they are intelligently and faithfully applied. To do, is as necessary as to be.

Recapitulation
1. The impersonal God is the fixed point from which all fundamental factors follow in orderly sequence. God, to be God, must be more than a being who feels conflicting emotions and acts accordingly.

The God of Theology is a personal, a human-like being, who feels both love and hate, who intentionally blesses and curses, who exalts those whom He loves and casts down and destroys those whome He hates; and He hates those who do not see and obey Him as He wishes to be seen and obeyed. He is a despot, a tyrant, executing his changeable will upon mankind. No one can be sure that he is in favor with God, sure that he is one of the elect who shall be saved from the divine wrath.

Think a moment of what that means-divine wrath. Can you see anything divine in wrath? Is there anything God-like in it? Is not wrath a distinctively human characterisitc, seen in yourself and in your fellow-men?

Is there any certainty for you, for any one, any stability in the universe, if its cause and sustainer is a being who can, and at any moment may, change his mind, change his plans, purposes, intentions, wishes? This kind of a being is not and can not be asbolute; for a God who wishes for anything whatever has not that for which he wishes; if he had he would not wish. This is a limited, not the absolute, God.

Equally is this true if God forms any plan or intention, making up His mind to do something, or produce something which did not and could not exist till He made up His mind to make it. In this view there is no room for co-existence, for simultaneiousness; and consequently no explanation of Nature. It divorces God from Nature, making all things subject to His caprice and permitting no stability.

Hence the age-long conflict between Science and Religion-what has been called Religion. Science deals with Nature, makes discoveries from the basis of facts. What has been called Religion is offered as a divine revelation and a substitute for facts. It too often contradicts them.

Scientists say "This is true, for we have discovered and verified it." Religionists-theologians-say "That can not be true, for divinely revealed Religion declares to the contrary." And the scientists are nearer to the discover of the real God than are the theological religionists, for they are delving into Nature while the others stand afar off from her. A revelation that can not reconcile Religion and Science, Truth and Facts, is worth little.

The impersonal God as the governing Principle that compels an orderly sequence of fundamental, therefore eternal, factors, is to be found and known "by His works"; by finding and knowing those factors and their consequences, and their oderly relation to each other.

Which is the higher conception of God? God as a might and powerful being who loves and saves some, and hates and destroys others; or, God as Love, as Principle that omnipotent, unvarying Love that is alike for all men, the sun that shines equally upon the just and the unjust?

With the theological conception of God no Science of Being is possible. God's will determines everything and that will may change at any moment. With the higher conception, God as Principle, the Science of Being is an accompanying necessity, for it is the eternal certainty that the impersonal compels by its nature.

As impersonal Principle, God is the same yesterday, today, and forever. God is "without variation" or "shadow of turning." Creation is according to the nature of God and is, therefore, stable and sure. Discovery is all that is necessary for ourselves, and we can make effort to this end, confident that while we are seeking nothing will change and our time, in consequence, be wasted.

This higher conception of God eliminates chance. There is no chance. "If God should chance" to do thus and so, or "If Nature should chance" to produce this or that, are expression of ignorance, not of knowledge. All that belongs in the order that is the logical sequence of what God is as Principle, is absolutely sure. The differing aspects of GOd but help to reveal the allness of the Absolute One. Because God is Spirit, Life, Love, Intelligence, Substance, Mind, the rest follows. There can be no change in the sequence that ensues.

2. The inseparability of Cause and its ACtion, of Substance and Motion, and also the distinction between them, help, when discerned, to perception of what Creation is and includes. This compelling Action is the Initial Impulse for all that follows. It is God at work; not at work according to His pleasure at the moment, but at work according to the nature of God, and persistently.

The Original Motion is the "going forth to the outermost ends of the earth." It is Force, the Force that compels and impels all that lives and moves. The Force of Nature is God at work, and is resistless. Nothing can stay it, everything must eventually let it work onward.

God's will is the nature of God in operation, or active; and that will is being done throughout Nature. God's will never alters or varies, it is always the same; and God's productions are equally changeless, as could not be the case if the First Cause were other than impersonal Principle.

Pure Motion, that Action of Substance that is the operation of Cause, as the link between Cause and Effect is the link between GOd and Man; a connection not permiited but compelled.

3. The direct and all-inclusive Effect of that First CAuse that is God, is, in nature, according to, but not identical with, the nature of God; and is relative or Derived. This DErived being, Man, the Supreme Genus, or Ideal, is not a part of GOd, but is the consequence of what God is and does; of Substance and Motion.

This Man has no plural, there is but one Man as there is but one God. This "image of God," as the full Expression of all that God is and does, is all he can be. He can in no way be bettered. In what he is, or in his nature, he can be no more than he is primarily. All that is greater than he, is the Absolute, or God. If he is all he can be, if he can not be bettered, he is perfect and complete.

As the Expression of God, therefore, he is perfect, complete, and contains within his own circumference all that in any degree expresses First Cause. As the unit of Expression all that is directly from that source must be in him. IN him is everything spiritual, outside him is nothing that is primarily spiritual.

If everything in him is spiritual, what is from him must have another name. What is from him can not be a part of him, but a consequence, instead.

This Supreme Genus, Man, the Derived being, is not to be created, for he already is. He is co-existent with God. He is the ternal Ideal awaiting discovery and manifestation. He is what God's nature compels and he does not exist by permission.

4. Because Original Motion must be ceaseless as the operation of Cause, the Supreme Genus can be no bar to its further activity. Because this Force is impersonal it can not cease of itself. There is no intention to act, there can be no intention to cease acting.

As the Initial Impulse that brings, first, Derived being, it must move on through this being to further production. It must also communicate motion to this being, making it active; and activity that is not, and can not be, volitional with the Derived being, but is compelled by the relation between Cause and Effect.

5. Matter is the qualified motion resulting from Motion through Derived being. The difference between the Action of Mind, or Spirit, and Matter is the difference between pure force and qualified motion, the Derived being constituting the intervening or qualifying medium. Hence in the orderly sequence that constitutes Nature, Matter is relative to Derived being, and Derived being is absolute to Matter; Derived being is relative to God, and God is absolute to Derived being. This order stands as follows:

God Derived being Matter
The Absolute Relative to God and Relative to Derived
absolute to matter. being.


This Ideal, or Supreme Genus, is not an integral part of Matter, is not in Matter, but is veiled by Matter, hidden behind it, beyond the possibility of destruction or even danger, because of relation to Origin, or God.

Matter as the Reproduction in the order that constitutes Nature, follows after the Production that is Expression of God. It is not the living, substantial and intelligent in Nature; it stands before and hides that which is living, substantial and intelligent. The Spiritual is the real and Matter is the phenomenal. The real and the phenomenal never mingle, each is perpetually distinct in Nature.

6. Because Motion through Derived being communicates motion to that being, making it active, this activity, in conjunction with Motion through the being, brings conjunctive result. Conjunctive activities with conjunctive results, though distinct, are inseparable, for if th eone is, the other is also.

The Creative Power and the Forming Power are the greater and the lesser in Creation. The greater is the Initial Impulse, and the lesser is the communicated impulse. Neither is volitional, both are natural because compelled by Cause and Effect.

The Creative Power produces living things and living being, but the Forming Power can not produce them. It can produce only the phenomenal, or Representation. Reproduction, or Cosmic Matter is but the universal background for all shapes, it makes them visible.

A piece of glass is transparent. Looking in it you see nothing. But when one side is covered by a metallic coating shapes are seen. The coating is a background. Nature furnishes, because it includes, the background which makes shapes visible. Reproduction is the background and Representation is what is seen by means of it.

The Material Whole, or unit, contains wide variety because the Spiritual Whole, or unit of Expression, contains wide variety. All Natures, all faculties, all powers, all that expresses God even in the least degree, must be in, not out of, the Expression or unit.

Many differing natures, all that pertain to the mineral, vegetable and animal kingdoms, are in the composite nature of the unit. Every faculty, capacity and power that is from Mind, has place there also. As expressions of First Cause they are all good and can not be bettered.

The Material Whole contains each and every shape representative of those natures and of their quota of capacities and powers.

The Spiritual Whole and the Material Whole are the Number and Figure, the Noumenon and the Phenomenon. But value belongs to Number, not to Figure. Figure only represents Number. The Spiritual is the real, or has value. The Material represents value because it represents the Spiritual. Hence the Figure indicates what it is not. It is only a means for the finding of Number; the Phenomenon is but a means by which the Onlooker in Nature may discover the Noumenon.

The simultaneousness, or togetherativeness of these fundamental factors makes them coexistent with each other and with First Cause, a necessity that makes a unity of God and Nature. In this unity God is the governing Principle of the orderly sequence of fixed and relative factors that constitutes Nature, and is, in consequence, the Immanent God.

Between God and Nature no separation is possible-in fact, whatever the theory-and separation between any of the factors is equally impossible. Logical necessity keeps them connected, the one with the other, but keeps each distinct from the others, as well. God and Nature always were. They constitute the abstract truth that always was and ever will be.

God's will is done in the heaven that is Nature's inherent hamrony. "Thy will be done in earth as it is in heaven." If God and Nature are in everlasting unity, if Nature is fixed and changeless, what is to come of it all? Manifestation is to come. This "heaven" is to be made "plain, visible, obvious to understanding." The abstract truth is to become understood; the hidden real is to be made plainly visible. The veil is to be lifted and the eternal is to appear in all its power and majesty.

The third in the trinity-Expression, Representation and Manifestation-is to follow the other two. But something stands between. Before there can be recognition and understanding there must be a recognizer. Before Manifestation can follow, there must be something to receive it, something to which the hidden real can appear; and our next step is to pass to a consideration of the Onlooker in Nature.

Animus wrote:The book is not intended to prove or convince, but its intended utility is as a hypothesis that has the potential to improve one's conception of reality. Although much of the language used reflects Gestefeld's partiality to the Christian tradition, Gestefeld's notions about reality and the Christian God are far removed from the vast majority of Christian thinkers and constitutes the basis for distancing herself from the "New Thought" movement.

Kelly Jones wrote:I think there was about 10% of ideas, and 90% of waffle in the extracts posted. She could have reduced the whole down to a single paragraph, or a short series of points, reading something like this - albeit improved:

- To establish what is true, one must use reason / logical thinking. One must prioritise truth.
- Natural laws established by the scientific method indicate constancy, but one cannot be sure of that constancy.
- The basic creative processes of Nature are causal, which is a law established using purely logical thinking.
- Principles, such as causation, are impersonal, and not designed by a conscious being.

Unfortunately, because she doesn't pin things down like this, she adds a lot of vague garbage, like the trinity thing about expression, representation and manifestation. Her reasoning about choice is just one of many areas that can be demolished with a few seconds of thought. All those capitalised nouns in a modern work reminds me of Mormons parading. I'm not saying she's that bad, but it's not an example of high quality of thought, or of well-crystallised concepts. It's more like an expedition or assay into trying to sort out some definitions, with a lot of dreamy rambling in between.


.

Animus wrote:Well, this is what I love about this board, its also why I don't spend much time here anymore. More time is spent talking about how a person approaches subjects and what quality of author they are than the actual content of their determinations.

cousinbasil wrote:

Animus wrote:Well, this is what I love about this board, its also why I don't spend much time here anymore. More time is spent talking about how a person approaches subjects and what quality of author they are than the actual content of their determinations.

Animus, I can't discuss the actual content until I have read it. Right? I was just making some observations on what you posted.

BTW, I have arrived at various notions, through observation, regarding the number 3 (look, Kelly, I didn't capitalize the word number) as a smallest number of sorts when it comes to consciousness. I have written a bit elsewhere on GF about it.

I am interested in Gestefeld because she addresses it and may help me understand it better.

There is a concept from linear algebra which I have often found useful in analyzing everyday life and that is the idea of basis vectors.

In any given vector space of dimension N, there exists at least one set of "basis" vectors which spans that space. The number of basis vectors required to span that space is exactly N.

When I say that the basis vectors "span" the space, I mean any other vector in the space can be written as a linear combination of the basis vectors.

In our 3 -dimensional world, it requires three independent numbers to specify a given location as distinct from another. What those three numbers are depends on which set of three basis vectors we have chosen.

But once we have identified a particular set of basis vectors, we are then in a position to use any other set of basis vectors by means of a translation.


What I am getting at is that many philosophers arrive independently at the same ideas. However, they have begun at differing starting points, thus corresponding to differing basis vectors. Once one can identify how one basis translates to another, one can often see how completely separated thinkers are describing the same concepts using different terminology.

So Animus I am hoping Gestefeld is thinking along similar "lines" but merely using different "coefficients."

Animus wrote:Well, this is what I love about this board, its also why I don't spend much time here anymore. More time is spent talking about how a person approaches subjects and what quality of author they are than the actual content of their determinations.

I'll be the first to submit that Gestefeld is vague, and largely henidic in many of her reasonings, what struck me about it was its utility with respect to the Christian doctrine. I know that for Genius such things don't matter,

but for myself, it is incredibly useful for briding the gap between myself and others who are inclined to Christian dogma, which happen to be mostly everyone I know and encounter on a daily basis. After-all, I live in Canada, on a place called Earth, and not the purely logical and purely fictitious Vulcan.

I have concern for myself, my own understanding is paramount, yet I do love and want to connect with others. You may call that want egotistical, grounded in my own sense of self, however, it has the potential of being grounded in the exact opposite. Personally, I think I'm quite well without anyone else understanding me or "loving" me, but what could be practically more egotistical than solitude for the sake of avoiding egotistical attachment. How can you ever experience the non-egotistical state of harmony with your fellow humans if you are so overly critical and distant from them? That has occurred to me to be every bit as egotistical, wanting to save oneself from the delusional masses, as does being one of the delusional masses. My ideal is to be non-delusional, but not non-existent in the physical and social reality.

cousinbasil has found some utility in it, maybe where he is originating from, this can bring him closer to where others are at, or bring others closer to where he is at, rather than expecting everyone else to man-up or to hell with them. What has turned me off of this board is precisely the lack of connectivity and the pervasive inflammation that sullies all real discussion. I think, in-fact, know, that if you have any desire or intention to speak with other people, ever, without conflict, then you need to try to reach them from the onset, and not enter into with a negative, defeatus, or cynical attitude.

This ought to be apparent to anyone who has tried in earnest to relate to others, and not merely treated others as highly-probable nutjobs with no hope of salvation while aggrandizing oneself to the point of absurdity.

Part of the problem with any thought-scaffolding is the unportability of it. For example; it is my sumisation that Communications Theory/Theology as presented by authors like Corey Anton (Professoranton on Youtube) is virtually identical to Gestefeld's theology, but the terminology that makes up the scaffolding of thought leading to the pure conception is quite a lot different and unless you are thoroughly versed in both the similarity can appear completely absent. And its never a good idea to degrade everything under the son for the sake of some supreme ideal that has no practical value outside of one's own selfish pursuit of enlightenment. You can be fully enlightened only if you are capable of setting your attachment aside for love, and love means respecting this fact of differing approaches to enlightenment.

In the last year, I've tried this method of slamming people with facts and exposing all the infancy and fallaciousness of their own thinking, and at first I felt self-righteous and even proud of my superior conceptions, but ultimately that just means I'm not as egoless as I think I am. If anything that makes me a superior egoist who successfully hides his ego in his intellect.

Kelly Jones wrote:

Animus wrote:Well, this is what I love about this board, its also why I don't spend much time here anymore. More time is spent talking about how a person approaches subjects and what quality of author they are than the actual content of their determinations.

But I did that. I just didn't waffle.

I'll be the first to submit that Gestefeld is vague, and largely henidic in many of her reasonings, what struck me about it was its utility with respect to the Christian doctrine. I know that for Genius such things don't matter,

Actually, quite a few of us found the extract posted by Diebert, authored by Meister Eckhardt, to be brilliant. I personally find Kierkegaard to be one of my favourite thinkers, who traversed the Christian doctrine to a depth and meaningfulness no one else matches.

but for myself, it is incredibly useful for briding the gap between myself and others who are inclined to Christian dogma, which happen to be mostly everyone I know and encounter on a daily basis. After-all, I live in Canada, on a place called Earth, and not the purely logical and purely fictitious Vulcan.

Gene Roddenberry's portrayal of a highly logical person wasn't anywhere near accurate. ;-)

I have concern for myself, my own understanding is paramount, yet I do love and want to connect with others. You may call that want egotistical, grounded in my own sense of self, however, it has the potential of being grounded in the exact opposite. Personally, I think I'm quite well without anyone else understanding me or "loving" me, but what could be practically more egotistical than solitude for the sake of avoiding egotistical attachment. How can you ever experience the non-egotistical state of harmony with your fellow humans if you are so overly critical and distant from them? That has occurred to me to be every bit as egotistical, wanting to save oneself from the delusional masses, as does being one of the delusional masses. My ideal is to be non-delusional, but not non-existent in the physical and social reality.

Well, oddly enough, I'm quite a social being, and not isolated from the delusional masses in any actual physical sense. But I don't forget that I'm God's, and a wilderness dweller. So, even though I am in the midst of people, I am not tamed. I find that perspective, of having abandoned the need for animal communion, is essential for helping a person see things clearly.

cousinbasil has found some utility in it, maybe where he is originating from, this can bring him closer to where others are at, or bring others closer to where he is at, rather than expecting everyone else to man-up or to hell with them. What has turned me off of this board is precisely the lack of connectivity and the pervasive inflammation that sullies all real discussion. I think, in-fact, know, that if you have any desire or intention to speak with other people, ever, without conflict, then you need to try to reach them from the onset, and not enter into with a negative, defeatus, or cynical attitude.

It depends on the calibre of the other person. I generally modulate my style depending on the other person, but I sometimes overestimate people.

This ought to be apparent to anyone who has tried in earnest to relate to others, and not merely treated others as highly-probable nutjobs with no hope of salvation while aggrandizing oneself to the point of absurdity.

If that is an allusion to myself, then I think you're exaggerating grossly there. Was that statement aggrandizing myself, or just telling it as I see it without apologising for my own individual perspective? Should I have minimised the fact that I disagreed with you? Why should I do that, if you're a capable, rational person?

Part of the problem with any thought-scaffolding is the unportability of it. For example; it is my sumisation that Communications Theory/Theology as presented by authors like Corey Anton (Professoranton on Youtube) is virtually identical to Gestefeld's theology, but the terminology that makes up the scaffolding of thought leading to the pure conception is quite a lot different and unless you are thoroughly versed in both the similarity can appear completely absent. And its never a good idea to degrade everything under the son for the sake of some supreme ideal that has no practical value outside of one's own selfish pursuit of enlightenment. You can be fully enlightened only if you are capable of setting your attachment aside for love, and love means respecting this fact of differing approaches to enlightenment.

Actually, love is helping people become enlightened with as little unnecessary suffering as possible. I just don't see the point in meandering down dark alleys for the aesthetics of last year's most fashionable metaphorical brick textures. If you find this efficiency selfish, well, so be it. I guess I value things differently.

In the last year, I've tried this method of slamming people with facts and exposing all the infancy and fallaciousness of their own thinking, and at first I felt self-righteous and even proud of my superior conceptions, but ultimately that just means I'm not as egoless as I think I am. If anything that makes me a superior egoist who successfully hides his ego in his intellect.

Well, in the past, I often took a gentler approach, asking a lot of questions in a mild Socratic way, to gently stimulate the person to find answers. Unfortunately, the usual interpretation of this technique is that the questioner is learning from them, and submitting to them, which causes the usual person to experience the domination dynamic: to become quite arrogant. If one continues then to ask questions, they twig that the supposed submission isn't really there; at that point, they become very defensive, petulant, and even more arrogant.

I've found that it almost always works better to be simple and upfront. It's honest to say what one knows, if one knows it. Many people I interact with are quite at ease, and actually enjoy, the freedom and freshness, as well as the personal responsibility and independence, of this one-to-one, even "man-to-man" approach. Only those who aren't really confident on their intellectual feet get touchy when they meet up with the coolness of a wilderness dweller. But I wouldn't have thought that was you, Ryan.


.

Its not about what you know Kelly, its about your approach, and not because I can't take unscupulous criticism, but because the blinding effect. You simply cannot see what is being said when your fault-finder is set to "Always".

Dennis Mahar wrote:What are you up to?

Dennis Mahar wrote:What are you up to?



Discovering reality.

How's it going?

Animus wrote:

Kelly Jones wrote:

Animus wrote:Well, this is what I love about this board, its also why I don't spend much time here anymore. More time is spent talking about how a person approaches subjects and what quality of author they are than the actual content of their determinations.

But I did that. I just didn't waffle.

I'm not s ure how you are using "waffle", its not particular to me, but wordnet defines it as "hesitating" (not a bad thing with this kind of authorship) and wikipedia defines it as "blathering meaninglessly" which I submit you did do. Of your post you spent about 4 lines summarizing what you thought Gestefeld was saying, and you did that only to demonstrate that she didn't. From word one to the end, you set out to crticize. You said her thoughts on choice could be eliminated swiftly, but didn't offer any such execution. In all your post, you made no rebuttal of any of her points, but spoke merely of the quality of authorship.

I find the Watchtower occasionally helpful.

if I truly love then I seek to enlighten others in the most efficient way possible. All the fatigue and frustration of explaining is rooted in ego, is it not? If I don't think I can explain, I ought not to, but I still try to find ways of doing so.

You know, the same logical certainties can be arrived at by many means, some lengthy and some short. A lot of these "henidic" authors are vague, but their simplicity is as certain as our lengthy explications. For example: To Christians I ask; If God is Omnipotent; meaning God is All-Powerful, contains All Power, then how can you be free to choose contrary to God's Will? Isn't your choosing evidence of a Power independent of God? Unless your choosing is a mere extension of God's Will?

For them, I don't need to go into Kantian-style philosophy, and in any case they aren't ready to here it. Maybe once they've begun taking an objective look at their existing beliefs they will be prepared for Kant, but now they are just thinking there is a God who gave them Freedom of the Will and who stands apart as a Father. If I love these people, in earnest, I don't blast them with high-sounding terminology, or disown them out of frustration or shut my mouth out of fatigue.

Ryan: cousinbasil has found some utility in it, maybe where he is originating from, this can bring him closer to where others are at, or bring others closer to where he is at, rather than expecting everyone else to man-up or to hell with them. What has turned me off of this board is precisely the lack of connectivity and the pervasive inflammation that sullies all real discussion. I think, in-fact, know, that if you have any desire or intention to speak with other people, ever, without conflict, then you need to try to reach them from the onset, and not enter into with a negative, defeatus, or cynical attitude.

Kelly: It depends on the calibre of the other person. I generally modulate my style depending on the other person, but I sometimes overestimate people.

Ryan: I think you overestimate yourself a lot Kelly, I've seen you arguing with Pam on the "Blessed are the Poor In Spirit" thread, and my thought is that you are arguing aimlessly on something that you both fundamentally agree. I don't know why you insist on perpetually arguing like that.

Ryan: This ought to be apparent to anyone who has tried in earnest to relate to others, and not merely treated others as highly-probable nutjobs with no hope of salvation while aggrandizing oneself to the point of absurdity.

Kelly: If that is an allusion to myself, then I think you're exaggerating grossly there. Was that statement aggrandizing myself, or just telling it as I see it without apologising for my own individual perspective? Should I have minimised the fact that I disagreed with you? Why should I do that, if you're a capable, rational person?

Ryan: You don't have to mitigate your disagreement, just realize that you have a predilection to disagree. Probably because of your knowledge. If there is no one for the Guru to teach, then there is no Guru, so the Wannabe-Guru must make students for themselves, and this can be mere delusion.

Ryan: Part of the problem with any thought-scaffolding is the unportability of it. For example; it is my sumisation that Communications Theory/Theology as presented by authors like Corey Anton (Professoranton on Youtube) is virtually identical to Gestefeld's theology, but the terminology that makes up the scaffolding of thought leading to the pure conception is quite a lot different and unless you are thoroughly versed in both the similarity can appear completely absent. And its never a good idea to degrade everything under the son for the sake of some supreme ideal that has no practical value outside of one's own selfish pursuit of enlightenment. You can be fully enlightened only if you are capable of setting your attachment aside for love, and love means respecting this fact of differing approaches to enlightenment.

Kelly: Actually, love is helping people become enlightened with as little unnecessary suffering as possible. I just don't see the point in meandering down dark alleys for the aesthetics of last year's most fashionable metaphorical brick textures. If you find this efficiency selfish, well, so be it. I guess I value things differently.

Ryan: Because, when I tell my friend Greg that God is Impersonal because unwaverying, and that had he the choice we could not do his Will. Greg says to me "God makes the world the way it is because God is Love." and I reply "But if God makes decisions in accordance with his constitution (Love), then how could he choose to do otherwise unless he was something else like Hate." None of this reasoning agrees with Greg's world-view, he's not prepared for this, he is stuck on the Personal God who chooses and intervenes in time.

Its not about what you know Kelly, its about your approach, and not because I can't take unscupulous criticism, but because the blinding effect. You simply cannot see what is being said when your fault-finder is set to "Always".

Dennis Mahar wrote:Sorry man,
I just wanted to know how the project is going?
It's cool.

Dennis Mahar wrote:Yes, thankyou.
I get your caution.

Are we there yet?
or is the condition 'still looking'?

To answer your question might take some time. I guess its been about a year since I posted on this board. I have looked at it on occasion and saw the same old too-tired subjects being debated in similar too-tired fashion. Something came over me briefly and I chose to share something with Genius.

Recently, I discovered that I am incredibly insensitive, and I mean unempathic, like a psychopath. Yet, something has taken hold of me at times and brought me to shambles. The best I can give of this is to say; I knew the story of "Tank Man" very well, and told of it many times, but out of nowhere I had this experience of the man as if I was him. It was as if I suddenly became extremely empathic like I'd never experienced before.

Consequently, I realized that the answers were not available entirely to the rational mind and that my search continues. Except, now, my search is not for concepts so much, the concepts are mere pointers to the lived reality, and that is why I don't make a big stink about them and why I've turned to reading like this. Sure, they are mere concepts, and not very flushed out, but they are pointing in the right direction and they speak to and activate parts of the mind not engaged by pure conceptual thinking. Hence the power of metaphor.