Friday, September 02, 2016

How Oneness Is Not Godhood


Does “likeness imply a oneness from which all likeness descends” as David Middleton poetically put it? (Modern Age, Summer 2016) If so, why does oneness suggest a highly complicated and wise God rather than a basic primeval origin? If a basic primeval origin is the reality, and I believe it is, then “oneness” has been vastly hypertrophied into a God.

What is important about the beginning, or beginnings, is the activation, the “force” that leads material life to evolve. This force is not God, it seeks Godhood. And this “force that through the green fuse drives the flower” (Dylan Thomas) is not any more “spiritual” then the Godhood it seeks to attain by activating and riding within the vehicle of material life toward supermaterial Godhood.

I have called this force the Will-Spirit or Spirit-Will mainly for the sake of continuity with the old idea of the Spirit or Soul. There is more to evolution than the duality of genes and nature, or genes telling the cells what to do within natural selection. That seems inadequate to explain the development of form and order, and the timeless movement from simplicity to complexity. Godhood is evolved to in the material world with stops and starts along the way, in an unending evolution.

Traditional religion sought the Inward God or Father Within which was a symbolic experience of the real Godhood reached through outward evolution. This is retained and defined in the Involutionary and Evolutionary Twofold Path of theological materialism.

A single beginning is part of that fantasy of oneness mentioned above. “Eden” is not that basic, primeval, unevolved, oneness. Eden is the zenith of material evolution which continues endlessly, like the universe. The world is not “fallen” from that basic primitive beginning, the world has evolved from that primitive beginning. “Time” is not a finality or a God, time is a technical measuring of endless evolution.

If there is something that could be called “divine” in humans it is that activating force within life, which is nevertheless not a God but is an imperfect “desire” for real material/supermaterial Godhood, which seems to define “life” in its evolving essence toward that sacred goal.

No comments: