God Is the Event of Distinction

[Eodnhoj7]

Updated


God Is the Event of Distinction; Transcendental and Mediative of Distinction as Distinction

By distinction all things of the senses, mind and spirit are given limit and form via distinction;

By distinction the senses, mind and spirit are given form via distinction.

By distinction the realities of the subjective and the objective are given form via distinction;

By distinction subjective and objective are given form via distinction.

By distinction the finite and infinite are given form via distinction;

By distinction the comprehendable and incomprehensible are given boundary via distinction.

By distinction the transcendent and immanent are given boundary via distinction.

By distinction there is the form and formless.

By distinction there is rationality and irrationality, what remains is distinction.

By distinction there is conditionality and unconditionality, what remains is distinction.

By distinction there is the known and unknown, knowable and unknowable; as the limits of each what remains is distinction.

By distinction is immanence and transcendence, the immanence of transcendence and the transcendence of the immanent; what remains is distinction.

By distinction there is omnipresence as distinction mediates all, by mediation of all there is the transcendence of all.

By distinction there is being and non-being thus both and as such neither.

The indistinct is distinct from distinction thus the indistinct is subsumed as distinction thus distinction contains itself.

By distinction there is distinction as the indistinct for the distinct is distinct by the distinction of the indistinct.

Distinction via distinction is a distinction;

Distinct from distinction is a distinction.

By distinction there is true and false, what remains is distinction.

By distinction there is the moral and immoral, what remains is distinction

By distinction there is the sacred and non-sacred, what remains is distinction.

By distinction there is the relative and the absolute, what remains is distinction.

By distinction there is the dual and non-dual, what remains is distinction.

By distinction there is the self-evident and non-self evident, what remains is distinction.

By distinction there is the assumed and unassumed, what remains is distinction.

By distinction there is God(s) and the Absence of God(s), what remains is distinction.

By distinction there is creator and created, what remains is distinction;

The creator is creator via created, the created is created via the creator;

The creator transcends created via distinction, the creator mediates created via distinction; created scales as this via distinction;

The act of creation is the event of distinction, the creator is the event of distinction, creator and created are distinct and yet reflexive via distinction.

By distinction there is interior and exterior, beyond and present, what remains is distinction.

What is interior is but the container of what is exterior as the contained is but the limits of the exterior;

What is exterior is but the container of what is interior as the contained is but the limits of the exterior,

Interior and exterior are one via distinction, many via distinction;

the one and many occur via distinction thus non-dual multivalency is and what is is a distinction the the limits of non-dual multivalency

By distinction there is non-dual and dual, univalence and multivalence;

By distinction there is real and unreal; what remains is distinction

To reduce is to unify as the underlying distinction of the reduced, to expand is to multiply as the distinction scales; the division of a line is its multiplication, the multiplication is its division

By distinction there is gnosis and agnosis, what remains is distinction.

The contrast of contrast is contrast as unity of contrast;

The unity of unity is unity as the constrast of unity;

the absence of absence is presence as absence;

The presence of presence is absence as presence.

The darkness of darkness is darkness as light.

The light of light is light as darkness.

By distinction light and dark are, what remains is distinction.



God is the prime distinction from which all distinctions are mediated, transcendent of distinction by distinction itself, what remains is distinction.

What remains is distinction, 'remains' is subject to distinction, 'subject to' is a distinction.

++++

Distinction may be observed as such:

Self contained self contrast via recursion.

Here is a visual and direct formulation at the most or primitive level possible:

There is void •

This void is indistinct potentiality, the space by which what is actualized is actualized. What is not is the space by what is occurs, pure nothingness is by which thingness occurs as nothingness is that by which thingness is for a thing cannot occur where another thing is but only by which the relative nothingness of the thing is. Void is the same as potentiality in terms and nature.

This potentiality contains its potential to be distinct as potential, the distinction of potential is actuality of potential as potential, thus actually occurs:

••

Potential is distinct from potential as actual potential, the potentiality is recursive. This recursion is the contrast of • as • is indistinct until •• where it contrasts itself. •• is also the limit of • where • contains itself via ••.

In this respect •• is self contained self contrast.

Now • can be observed as:

0d point.
Point of attention.
Void as potentiality
Source\God

So what we know of distinction is self contained self contrast as recursion. In this respect both pattern and process are effectively one, patterned change.

Take for example the recursion of •

• contains •
•• contains •, ••
••• contains •, ••, •••
•••• contains •,••,•••,••••

Dually

•••• is contained by the recursion of ••••,•••,••,•
••• is contained by the recursion of ••••,•••,••,•
•• is contained by the recursion of ••••,•••,••,•
• is contained by the recursion of ••••,•••,••,•

Thus • contains and is contained by •

This containing by and containing nature of • is its own contrast as

The recursion of • is the contrast of •
The containing of and containing by • reveals • as its own contrast via the container and contained

So while •…• may go on indefinitely, a pattern is always present simultaneously thus at the proto-mereological level revealing both pattern and process as a false binary outside the respect context of each distinction being primary within context.

[Gary Childress]

Perhaps God is God, and Distinctions are distinctions, but distinctions are not God and God is not a distinction. Would that be possible?

[Eodnhoj7]

Perhaps God is God, and Distinctions are distinctions, but distinctions are not God and God is not a distinction. Would that be possible?

Did you use distinctions in claiming this?

[Gary Childress]

Perhaps God is God, and Distinctions are distinctions, but distinctions are not God and God is not a distinction. Would that be possible?

Did you use distinctions in claiming this?

Does it matter whether I used distinctions or not? I used words; is God words, or is God a word? Is "distinctions," first and foremost, a word more so than it is anything else?

[Eodnhoj7]

Perhaps God is God, and Distinctions are distinctions, but distinctions are not God and God is not a distinction. Would that be possible?

Did you use distinctions in claiming this?

Does it matter whether I used distinctions or not? I used words; is God words, or is God a word? Is "distinctions," first and foremost, a word more so than it is anything else?

You can point to a word without using words thus a word is subject to an event of distinction thus distinction is not limited to words.

[Impenitent]

You can point to a word without using words thus a word is subject to an event of distinction thus distinction is not limited to words.

https://www.gettyimages.com/photos/skunk

-Imp

[Gary Childress]

Did you use distinctions in claiming this?

Does it matter whether I used distinctions or not? I used words; is God words, or is God a word? Is "distinctions," first and foremost, a word more so than it is anything else?

You can point to a word without using words thus a word is subject to an event of distinction thus distinction is not limited to words.

Just trying to figure out what your all-absorbing fascination is with "distinctions". You devote a lot of typing to it. Is it important, or some great philosophical breakthrough? Is it going to help you avoid death someday or put food on the table?

[Eodnhoj7]

Does it matter whether I used distinctions or not? I used words; is God words, or is God a word? Is "distinctions," first and foremost, a word more so than it is anything else?

You can point to a word without using words thus a word is subject to an event of distinction thus distinction is not limited to words.

Just trying to figure out what your all-absorbing fascination is with "distinctions". You devote a lot of typing to it. Is it important, or some great philosophical breakthrough? Is it going to help you avoid death someday or put food on the table?

What I am confused about is you being on a philosophy forum, philosophy is being discussed, and the first thing that comes to mind is your base appetites and fears....and yet you claim to value reason.

[Walker]

You can point to a word without using words thus a word is subject to an event of distinction thus distinction is not limited to words.

https://www.gettyimages.com/photos/skunk

-Imp

This past summer while glamping I narrowly avoided a stinky dose of distinction. While strolling in the oldest darkness of the night with eyes on the horizon, the little stinker snuck up on me and at a distance of six feet we both noticed one another. White stripe at night. I instinctively froze*. With no need to brandish its awesome defensive powers, it kindly turned and scurried away slowly, but slow was as quickly as needed for the wild little critter because not many things will chase that fluff a second time. Not once did it raise its tail against me, which means it made a non-stinky distinction.

*The truth of man in that situation was, whatever will be will be.

[Walker]

Is it (distinctions) going to help you avoid death this day, or some particular unknown day, or put food on the table?

Yes, that's the purpose of distinctions.

(I changed your quote to clarify the purpose of distinctions. That way the answer to the question begins with yes, rather than the answer of "no" that is built into your unchanged question, built-in based on the fact that form is not permanent.)