4. Deity

How people view religion provides excellent opportunities to peer into the way people structure their thinking. Important to avoid, however, are the inherent controversies that can upset large groups of people. The great benefit of discussing the word God is that most people are very familiar with the concept. The downside of the word is that most people would struggle when asked to describe God. Many would be finished in just a few phrases - if that. 

An important word often used to describe God is discussed here to make us wonder about how we think, while a creation story is presented about what happened right before and during the first moments of the Big Bang.

-----

Naturally, a lot has been written and said about God’s creations and messengers - one can easily say volumes! Yet it is difficult to declare something detailed about God. Case in point, describing God as Him or Her is basically already inappropriate, because God does not have a gender, or God can be said to encompass all genders.
 
Depending on time, place and culture, God is envisioned as female, male, angry, merciful, a noun applicable to more than one god, or an abstract, such as found with the word balance. For some, God is nature. Once people have set their eyes on one clear meaning, the specific word use does not get questioned further.

In this blog, I want to be respectful to all who use the word God, be it in the singular or when used with the plural of gods. Yet one aspect, that of God Almighty, needs to be pointed out; discussing the structure of that particular word helps in understanding how people can take an artificial step when thinking about the largest of concepts. Where possible, I will use a different example to bring the message home.

-----

Within the human realm, when a dictator decides to give his subjects the freedom to do whatever they like, the dictator ceases to be a dictator. He (dictators tend to be guys) may still be powerful, yet all-empowered he is no longer. The conceptual framework of a dictatorship does not include the option for others to do whatever they like.

Believers in God declare that God has given us human beings free will. In such a framework, God can be mighty indeed - mightiest can also be used - but the word Almighty cannot be used to describe God. By establishing free will in people, they have become mighty themselves, albeit just about their own subject matter. Both mighty and almighty sound plausible, but mighty is a possible construct, whereas almighty is an unsupported construct if we agree that people have free will. 

The clarification is based on a small distinction. In the previous blog the common use of 'mother and child' was declared structurally incorrect, because mother goes with son or daughter, and parent goes with child. No one would lose any sleep over this distinction, and I hope that my declaring the word almighty as an incorrect construction keeps no one up at night either.

-----

Let's work out the artificial position of almighty, using a different word. We can declare, for instance, that the dollar is almighty. It has been said many times and even songs have been written about it. The point for discussing this here is to show that the word is an inappropriate word, and while the top position of the dollar is not in question, the dollar is simply not almighty in an absolute sense.

The word in question consists of two positions: all and mighty. With all, we can think currencies, and then declare the dollar the mightiest one of them. Nobody would object to this statement. When reviewing this restriction more closely, however, it can be said that the dollar does not dictate the value of other currencies. Rather, currencies fluctuate among themselves, not just around the dollar, and one of them (the dollar) is positioned in top. 

The euro, the yen, and the yuan (renminbi) all contain an empire of their own, a geographical area in which each of them is mighty. This undermines the absolute idea that the dollar is almighty.

-----

Some currencies are so weak, another currency such as the dollar may have become the desired currency. For instance, people in Venezuela view the dollar as the stable currency, because their Bolivar is under enormous pressures. A person in Venezuela may know 'for a fact' that the dollar is almighty. Yet even for this person, using the word almighty is incorrect.

The word all in almighty indicates not just currencies, but everything there is. At the moment of this writing, food is actually mightier in Venezuela than money. And so would be the love for their country, or getting a good education. To declare the dollar almighty is giving greater importance to something admittedly very important, greater than what is actually possible; it is an exaggeration beyond an actual value.

-----

Two constructs are combined into one word about a single specific entity not only being the mightiest among all, but being an essential aspect within all as well. It is like saying that white is the brightest color and that it fundamentally exists within all colors as well. Yet white is the combination of all colors; white is not found in green or orange. Of course, one can suggest that light is found in all, but we would not say that light is the brightest color, or that it shines everywhere.

Unless the word almighty is given a lesser meaning, as sometimes is done in dictionaries, it simply does not exist. Allow me to say that when folks use almighty, they actually mean mightiest. The word almighty is like an Escher drawing, finished, beautiful, and not possible.

All words are artificial, but some of them are also incorrect. Originally from the Netherlands, I know many people who use the word (in Dutch) of onliest. "She is the onliest with a perfect score." When confronted with the incorrectness of the word, many stand firm that the word is correct, and even double-down saying she was the all-onliest. In English, we do not make this mistake, and just use only or only one. My own parents could not believe the word onliest was not a correct word, and at some point this was also true for the three people known best as me, myself and I. 

Recapturing it one more time: combining the general position of All (1) and the specific position of Mighty or Mightiest (1st) is not possible. By separating the concepts correctly, one can say that God can exist at the highest level possible, be mightiest, and even be declared to be everything. The two parts, All and Mighty, must be viewed in their own light, and not be combined. 

-----

With two eyes, each of us cannot do anything other than declare our specific view, our position, as our own. Our planet Earth, for instance, is simply not found anywhere in the universe. It is located in a very specific spot, billions of light years away from where materialization began. A century ago, no religion knew about this very specific position we find ourselves in, and it shows. The other eye must be opened to get a view that contains this level of perception.

The creation story presented in this blog about what preceded the Big Bang consists of an initial activity that is followed up by an inaction, with this combination leading to materialization. This version is of course in compliance with the 0 – 1 setup. Not only will there be a need for some form of consciousness (1), but there will also be a need for the lack thereof (0), both leading to the process of materialization.

-----

While it is not possible to find data from the time and place before the Big Bang, there is a window through which we can peer into the previous state of our universe. Naturally, any proposed perspective cannot conflict with the known outcome. At the same time, the proffered view should answer the question how materialization was even possible. 

Consider a vase as metaphor for the previous state of our universe. Our current universe would be a vase shattered in an almost infinite number of pieces. We are confronted with the question of how that vase could have shattered itself. In our current universe, all we need is a solid floor and enough space for gravity to do its work. But there was no material floor available in the previous state. How can we establish a floor in the former state of our universe?

First off, we need to understand that for this specific explanation the previous state is an energized state. The energy in this pre-materialized state can be called dark energy. Theoretically, dark matter and dark energy are considered to exist within our current universe, non-material in essence. If scientists play with these terms, then dark energy can be used in this blog as the energetic state of the previous version of the universe.

-----

To begin with, let's address the floor on which our vase shatters. Today, we consider the three dimensions as three directional pairs. The pairs are up and down, front and back, left and right. However, there is one additional pair in our three-dimensional reality that is often overlooked because it occurs at the collective level. The in-and-out pair exists without a doubt, because our universe is doing just that: all matter is moving outwardly in a collective manner.

There is something special about the in-and-out directional pair. Though the outward movement can continue on forever, truly ad infinitum, the inward movement has an automatic stop. At some point, it becomes impossible to automatically move inward further as a collective. Believe it or not, we have found our solid floor. Yet a collective direction is then also discovered as norm for dark energy before the process of materialization started.

Consider an energized reality. All that is needed is an inward movement occurring within the former energized state of the universe. The inward movement is an activity, and if desired we can place God here. With God, the inward activity can be seen as a conscious activity. Naturally, the story can be told without using the word God, and the outcome would not be any different. Based on the outcome, we can state not only that it occurred, but that it had collective qualities. The activity would persist until no further inward movements were possible for its central area, forcing an outcome.

-----

Based on the material outcome after the Big Bang, imagine the enormous amount of energy before the Big Bang that is moving inwardly onto its collective self. We know that this movement either was not or did not continue to function as a collective. Therefore, right where push comes to shove, there is no longer a collective reality, but rather there are three specific realities.

First, at one point at the center of the inward movement, no inward movement is possible anymore. As mentioned, this area may have been the size of 380,000 light years, so it is by no means a bulwark the size of a pinhead. Let's declare this area to consist of dark matter and that it is locked in place by outside pressures.

Second, surrounding the central immobile area, movement is still occurring, but it is not occurring in a uniform manner anymore. Where friction is possible near the immobile area, sideways movements are found. Envision this energized area the basis for materialization.

Third, and farther out, the overall movement is still inward, as if nothing had changed. The pressure for the area of friction occurs due to the continued inward movement from the outer areas. Lastly, therefore, this continuing not-stopping energy is exactly like the original dark energy.

What started out as collective behavior is no longer collective in nature. The center is immobile, the frontier area surrounding this large ball of solid dark energy is moving sideways, and the exterior parts are continuing to move inwards on a collective path.

-----

Based on the fact that we ended up with our vase shattering all over the place, something must have gone terribly wrong, and this must have been where the friction is occurring. The sideways movement in the area of friction is simply not sustainable, and the dark energy is locally warped, broken up into pieces. Not only does this transform the area of friction into matter, it also unleashes enormous outward pressures, because the collective movement is no longer collective and therefore no longer contained.

The story is already complete if the immobile inner area, at first locked in place, became mobile again with one direction to go only: outward. Enormous outward pressures are unleashed, and anything that materialized in the area of friction would have been catapulted outwardly. Though the story is told with simple details only, it does fit the outcome as discovered by scientists. A significant distinction is that the entire setup delivers the push to matter, whereas most energy remained immaterialized.

-----

Let’s recapture this image in different words, making light of it a bit. Imagine a million eggs moving towards one another. Yes, the results will be a scramble. There is not necessarily much speed involved, so let’s make this event go extremely slow as to not break anything. At some point, eggs are meeting up shoulder to shoulder at the center, and yet more eggs are moving inwardly.

It is not the center egg that will ultimately give way; this egg is shielded from the mounting pressures by the strength of the shells of all surrounding eggs. Rather, in the areas located right outside the equilibrium where strength of shells meets inward pressures, the conditions for breakage are just right; those eggs are beaten.

It does not matter how we envision the energy of the previous state, because there will automatically be a perfect-storm momentum between localized strengths and inward pressures. Where the tiniest amount of friction is possible next to the highest possible level of tension, those eggs are toast.

-----

Where the conscious (1) movement occurred, an outcome of unintended (0) consequences followed. Where a collective dark-energy movement was started up, individual packages of dark energy ended up being squeezed out by the collective setup. Where at first there was control, the result contained areas without control.

The packages of dark energy materialized under specific conditions, and it shows. The process of inward movement contained an automatic stop, and this limit is subsequently expressed in matter. Consider the fact that no matter in our universe is infinite; all matter is limited. There is also a collective quality attached to matter, even though this, too, has its limitations.

Our planet Earth is the largest unit of matter we live on. While it is enormous compared to our own physical sizes, it is a limited place. The largest material entity in our universe is a limited place. Matter shows us the experienced original limit; packages of dark energy found themselves subjected to a collective force whose limitation got expressed in specific local spots.

-----

In this blog all are encouraged to continue believing in God, though the Almighty position is an incorrectly constructed position. It is not that God cannot be mighty or mightiest, but Almighty is simply not available without making serfs out of ourselves. Our Universe 2.0 is moving outwardly, and the prior condition therefore would have been an inward condition that automatically contained a final moment, ending the Universe 1.0 setup.

In the next blog the secret content of the pyramid is revealed. 


Blog Chips 

-----

Narrative based on In Search of a Cyclops, published by Penta Publishing.

Feel this blog can use improvement? Send feedback at: pentapublishing.com

3. Cyclopes and Pyramids

In the previous blog, a sketch of a Big Bang environment was presented in which a central area of 00s was found. The 00s indicate a non-materializing first step as part of the materialization process. Compared to the prevailing Big Bang theory, that is an important distinction. This 'empty' spot allows us to consider a position that is not available in the current Big Bang theory.

Standing at that specific viewpoint, it becomes possible to examine some of what must have occurred right before matter was created. There are certain limitations on what can be viewed, and expectations should range from getting a spectacular vista to leaving us wanting even more.

Vista, view and vision are closely related words. In specific, a vision can be considered a view of the mind's eye. But does the mind have just one eye, or would it be more accurate to speak of the mind's eyes? To understand the Structure of Everything it is not enough to be looking for answers; the structure in which we think is just as important, and this blog investigates those structures further.

----- 

A well-known story exists about a hero encountering a giant with a severe case of singular vision. Homer wrote how Odysseus was captured by Polyphemus, a cyclops (1) said to be living in a land of cyclopes. Of particular interest in this Greek myth is that Odysseus declared his own name to be Nobody (0). This name actually helps Odysseus and his crew escape the cyclops. 

Held captive inside Polyphemus' cave, the Greeks puncture the cyclops' eye to blind him. When other cyclopes rush to the blocked cave after hearing him scream, Polyphemus tells the others that Nobody hurt him. Upon hearing this information, the other cyclopes decide not to investigate the inside of the cave. 

Later, when Polyphemus' sheep need to go outside, and the cyclops has to roll away the rock blocking the exit of the cave, Odysseus and his men hang underneath the sheep's bellies to escape the giant and his giant hands.

-----

Of course there are modern day cyclopes. Imagine being captured by an enemy organization, or being captivated by an ideology that has an insurmountable amount of leverage. Communism, for instance, would fit the bill, as an example of a united vision and no alternative available. Particularly when not of the same mindset, it can be impossible for an individual to overcome the giant jailer or roll away the rock that blocks the exit of the cave. Truth be told, when unempowered, human beings are often better off behaving like nobodies and doing nothing but sheepishly follow the herd.

An overarching ideology can be based on two eyes as well. In contrast to communism, societies with a free market mechanism allow for individuals to follow their own plan, resulting in a more diverse outcome. More than one vision can prevail in these societies. Note, however, that some of the successful individuals or organizations may end up being giants in their own right, capturing others in their specialized and singular niches.

-----

Within a vision, other competing visions can be declared inferior or incorrect. Let's apply the terms artificial (1) and unimportant (0) to examine these perspectives better. Free market supporters would view the communist diktat as rather artificial and therefore leading to flawed outcomes. Meanwhile, communist supporters would claim the free market mechanism turns a blind eye to entrenched poverty and injustice.

Other historical examples exist of people rejecting alternative ideas with artificial or unimportant positions. In the 16th century, Protestants removed the statues of all the saints from Catholic Church buildings, because they were seen as the artifacts of a united church (1) that had slipped away from its core. In contrast, the Catholic Church viewed the Protestant calls for reform as too unimportant (0) to create any meaningful changes itself.  

As a result, different visions may end up existing next to each other, declaring the other as out of step with reality or as ignoring important calls for attention. Each of these competing ideologies will assert that their vision is complete, the only one that is correct. Naturally, where two eyes may establish the highly beneficial perception of depth, a first requirement is that both eyes collaborate.  

It may be difficult, but one must say goodbye to rejecting competing ideas that may also be correct or that may contain correct aspects. To understand the Structure of Everything, we need two eyes. 

----- 

In this blog an overarching framework is presented that declares all known information surrounding the Big Bang as important, while trying to remove anything artificial. One component in the prevailing Big Bang theory that can be declared artificial is the unified pinprick (1) in time and space from which all matter originated. Eliminating this option is not that difficult, because there is no actual data to prove it happened that way, and it creates an intellectual dead end that nobody asked for.

To survive the captivating power of the cyclops, Odysseus fits himself to the cyclops' environment, becoming invisible to the hands of the giant in order to escape. This Nobody liberates himself sheepishly from the realm of the cyclopes to continue his treacherous journey home.

-----

In Greece, the idea of monotheism did not always exist; many gods were thought to exist. The story of the cyclopes may point to the Greeks having had knowledge about other cultures with captivating singular visions. In nearby Egypt, for instance, Akhenaten and Nefertiti are known as the pharaohs that tried to establish monotheism in their lifetimes. After their rule, close to all artifacts of them were destroyed. 

Polytheism and monotheism compete with one another for dominance in the realm of religion. Structurally, they are different. We can use 1 to declare an essential aspect of monotheism, but what number can be used to do the same for polytheism?

In Egypt, pyramids were built centuries before Akhenaten and Nefertiti came to power. Though the origin is not known with certainty, etymological claims are made that the word pyramid translates into: one (1) that comes forth from height. Basically, the word can be expressed as Unity existing above the diverse bases.  

If desired, we can insert numbers to the pyramid model: 1 would then fit in top position, albeit with an artificial high-up nature; numbers 2, 3, 4 and 5 can be placed at its corner positions.

At the bottom of the pyramid, four distinct positions can be envisioned, all pointing in their own direction. From a mathematical perspective, the squares of 1 and 2 (which are 1 and 4) are visible in the five pointed directions of a pyramid: left, right, front, back, and up. 

The model for the Structure of Everything is a pyramid. Explaining the word as indicated above would make the claim possible that the ancient Egyptians understood the pyramidal structure the same way as presented in this blog. Many ancient cultures are known to have had pyramids, such as the Mayan, the Chinese, and the Nigerian culture.

-----

The following example introduces the functional pyramid, using familiar nouns: father, mother, son and daughter. The bond that exists among them can be expressed with the word family.

The used nouns - father, mother, son, daughter and family - can be placed in a pyramid. The actual figures (4) are found at the base, whereas the name tag for the bond that exist within them is declared in top position (1).

Other examples can be used. Instead of using father, mother, son and daughter, we can use male, female, young and old. The name tag would change from family to human being. Note how these name tags are presented in the singular.

It is not possible to unite all four nouns at the base, even though commonalities can be found throughout. Male, for instance, can be combined in one person with either young or old; young can be combined with male or female. Yet there is no single person that contains all four positions. Quoting Einstein loosely, who said that solving a problem is not possible at the level it exists, when looking for the commonality among these nouns we need to climb one level up.

----- 

It is very easy to combine two aspects at the base of the pyramid and replace them with a single word. Next to father and mother, one can place, for instance, child in what would then be a tetrahedron pyramid of possible positions (3) with the word family in top (1). Even though this is an important configuration, it contains a flaw that may fall below our radar system.  

Hearing someone say mother and child is so common, it is difficult to distinguish that something flawed is going on. Mother and child are incorrectly grouped. In reverse, with parent and daughter, it is easier to hear that the combination is somewhat awkward. The natural combinations are parent and child, and mother and daughter. 

The tetrahedron pyramid is a flawed pyramid. There are no sets of three of the same order in real life. As soon as there are three components of the same order, a fourth one exists as well.

We may be hardwired genetically to combine various aspects. Of our 23 pairs of chromosomes, Human Chromosome 2 is a fusion of two ancestral chromosomes. Our closest living relatives in the hominid family, such as the chimpanzee and the orangutan, have 24 pairs of chromosomes. Our Chromosome 2 has near identical DNA in what are two separate chromosomes for them. Genetically speaking, people may have a knack for combining things.

----- 

Lastly, something additionally important must be declared about words. The name tag human being is an abstract in top position of the pyramid. Yet it can itself also be seen as a specific word in a different setting. The specific meaning becomes obvious when we place human being together with tiger, elephant, tree and dolphin.

For these specific nouns, with as collective name tag living being, there is no pyramid. An enormously large number of different creatures are found on this list and the plural living beings could have been used just as easily.

Though the pyramid can be used to describe fundamental characteristics among entities, note that there are limited situations in which it can be used. The structure can be used to declare a general core commonality, but it cannot be used to declare every single thing. Recognize, however, that when reviewing tigers we can apply the pyramidal structure of male, female, young and old again.

-----

The pyramid has two oppositional bases (2 x 2). One set is entity-specific, such as male and female, and the other set is transformative, such as from young to old. As mentioned, the Unity in top position (1) functions as an abstract; it is an artificial reality that declares something in general about all. The term covers - and covers up - the specific details. 

The pyramid contains a crux with two sets of oppositional bases, but also with two levels of a specific base and a generic top. We have to wrap our minds around it to understand the configuration. The pyramid will be used in upcoming blogs to explain, for instance, the four forces in nature. The secret that exists within the pyramid will also be revealed.

----- 

In this blog it was established that competing visions exist, with some containing artificial aspects and others declaring some aspects to be unimportant. An ideology may be singular in nature or not. When freedom is manifest at the highest level, depth may get experienced through the collaborative effort of having more than one prevailing vision. Our brains may artificially unite all at the big picture level, and restructuring our mindset may involve saying goodbye to some aspects held to be true.

The pyramid can be used to display the Structure of Everything, portraying a general perspective in which an artificial Unity is found in top position above natural, diverse aspects belonging to the same order.

At the top of the hill we can see other hills, because nothing is blocking our view. With two functioning eyes, both cooperating, we may understand correctly how far away the other hills are. Standing at the window of the Big Bang process we can see a spectacular vista, presented in the next blog, that will leave us certainly wanting more.

Blog Chips 

-----

Narrative based on In Search of a Cyclops, published by Penta Publishing.

Feel this blog can use improvement? Send feedback at: pentapublishing.com