Mary Ann S: Thank you so much for your prompt reply!  May I ask a couple other questions?  1) Just to clarify for myself, would it be correct to say that you believe that after your own death, your personal consciousness will continue on in some way?

Djs: There are two issues to be addressed within your question:

First: Do I ‘believe’ that after your own death, your personal consciousness will continue in some way? The answer to this personal question regarding my personal belief is ‘Yes’.

Second: Putting my personal ‘beliefs’ aside, what do ‘first philosophy’ via reason and dialectics – ‘first science’ via observation and measurement – ‘first religion’ via faith and ancient wisdom – tell us regarding: … that after your own death, your personal consciousness will continue on in some way.

They tell us, if we use reason to connect the dots, we can emphatically conclude: …that after your own death, your personal consciousness will continue on in some way.

Mary Ann S: In other words, the consciousness that DJS experiences within the physical realm will still be “there” just in another form that we can’t really know yet? 

Djs: I ‘believe’ this AND reason, as this site demonstrates over and over again, demonstrates this is so.

Mary Ann S: 2) Will you explain your understanding of karma and how it works in the context of a panentheistic framework? 

Djs: Although it may appear that I know ‘everything’ there is to know about ‘a panentheistic framework’, in fact I do not. Karma is an Eastern concept that I know little about. As such I must be the first to say: I feel certain karma fits well into a panentheistic framework but I am not certain I understand ‘how’ karma fits into the panentheistic framework.

The thing about ‘new’ perceptions of reality such as symbiotic panentheism is that the validity of ‘new’ metaphysical perceptions can be ‘judged’ by their ability to generate new ways of thinking and your question is an example where there are so many arenas of new thinking evolving from panentheism that one person does not have the time or ability to understand them all.

Now if the question had been: ‘If the process of karma plays a role within a panentheistic framework, ‘why’ would karma be a factor …:, then I would have had something specific to say.

Mary Ann S: 3) Will you explain your understanding of “prayer” or connection with the divine/absolute/ultimate consciousness?

Djs: Prayer – the connection of one’s conscious existence with divine/absolute/ultimate consciousness.

The biblical phrase goes as follows: ‘…and God created man in his image and in the image of God created He man.’

If God/the absolute/ultimate consciousness/cosmic consciousness is omniscient, God would know how to do create man perfectly in His image. If God is omnipotent, God would have the power to create man His image. And if God is omnipresent there is no ‘place’ to place His creation than ‘inside’ Himself.

If man was created ‘perfectly’ in God’s image then the individual, like God, is divine in nature and as such there is no reasonable way to treat the individual than to treat the individual as one would treat God, with honor and respect.

Note: I use the male pronoun for God only because it is used in the biblical context. I do not personally believe God is exclusively male or female.

Mary Ann S: Thank you again for taking the time to help me as I explore these questions! 

You’re welcome

Feel free to send other question if and when you like.

8. Socrates (469-399 B.C.) – Q2: What is truth?

… He was more interested in engaging everyone – old or young, rich or poor – in a debate about the nature of things. In doing so, he felt that the inconsistencies of many opinions and actions could be revealed – thereby revealing the truth of things by eliminating the flawed assumptions. 

S: The perception that truth is either truth or an illusion of truth is no more accurate than the perception that the physical is either ‘real’ or an illusion. Tractate 1: The Error of Zeno - Resolving the Problem of Abstraction, found in the library of the site www.panentheism.com within The War and Peace of a New Metaphysical Perception, fully addresses the validity of both the abstract and the physical being real. One is real while one stands within its existence at which point the other becomes not an illusion but a ‘real illusion’. If on the other hand one changes location and stands in what previously was regarded as the real illusion then the ‘real illusion’ becomes what is real and the real becomes the ‘real illusion’. In short reality is not based upon either one or the other. Reality is based upon both simultaneously.

The truth regarding what is real and what is an appearance is simply a contention of semantics.

But what of all forms of truth? Is there such a ‘thing’ as ‘truth’ and if so, what is this thing we call ‘truth’? Truths are perceptual in nature and as such take on the ‘appearance’ of being ‘truth’ based upon ones perceptions which in turn are based upon the point of view, location, from which one speaks.

This is not to say there is no such thing as truth. Truth is the foundation upon which societies are built and as such, truth is the foundation of civilizations. The type of civilization, which emerges from the cooperation of its ‘citizens’, is where free will of choice enters the dynamics of civilization building.

Tractate 11: The Error of Philosophy dealt with the foundations of civilizations in great detail. The concepts of monism/singularity/conformity as represented by Nazism versus the concepts of dualism/multiplicity/individuality as represented by the Western democracies is a prime example of opposing ‘truths’ based upon the civilization emerging from group actions.

Both are based upon ‘truth’, however both are in stark contrast one to the other and as such the two collided in a violent explosion of traumatic actions which saw more than a fifty million people die and countless other lives thrown off their course of traveling unimpeded.

The same conflict is epitomized within the science fiction of Star Trek wherein the Klingons and the Federation clash.

v       

The point: Appearance (A) – Reality (B) or Reality (A) or Appearance (B) appears to be a reversal of words but it is not a reversal of words rather it is a reversal of position from which one perceives.

Which then is the ‘true’ choice? Which represents ‘truth’? The position we take regarding ‘truth’ from which all actions arise becomes a matter of choice, becomes a matter of free will. The choice, the stand we make, becomes one we as individuals and we as a society choose to take. It is taking ‘the stand’, making the choice, wherein our responsibility lies. But: Responsibility to what? then becomes the question. Responsibility to the whole of reality is the answer. Truth becomes the understanding regarding the complete model of reality and the internal dynamics of such a model.

8. Socrates (469-399 B.C.) – Q1: Is there a difference between ‘appearance and ‘reality’?

… Socrates was dedicated to truth. … He was concerned primarily with questioning all previous assumptions and wouldn’t settle for anything less than a rigorous account of the nature of things.

S: For the ancient Greeks, the nature of ‘things’ did not apply only to ‘things’ composed of matter and energy, as we perceive of them today. To the ancient Greeks, ‘things’ included ideas, music, art, emotions, knowledge, etc. as well as those substances composed of matter and energy.

Socrates’ concern with questioning previous assumptions in order to obtain a rigorous accounting of the nature of things was no less than an attempt to understand the root structure of reality.  An understanding of the nature of our reality leads to the understanding of the nature of ourselves which in turn leads to a potential understanding regarding our function within reality.

In essence Socrates’ was seeking to understand the answers regarding three questions:

                1. Where am I? – What is the nature of the reality within which I find myself to exist?

                2. What am I?  -  What is the nature of myself?

                3. Why do I exist? - What is the purpose of my existence?

Questions 1, 2, and 3 are questions 3, 2, and 1 in the list the twelve questions facing philosophers.

Understanding the answers to questions 1 – 3 leads us to understanding the answers to the remaining nine questions put forward previously in Section 1 of The Peer Review II.

Philosophers have always sought to answer the twelve questions. The reason philosophers have such a difficult time answering the twelve questions is because they do not ask the questions in the correct sequence.

To understand one’s function within reality one must first ask ‘where one is’ in order to understand ‘what one is one’. It is only through understanding ‘what one is’ that one can begin to understand one’s function within reality. In short the function of an entity depends upon what it is the entity is capable of accomplishing. The entity’s function based upon the capabilities of the entity are in turn characterized by the evolutionary development, be it intentional or unintentional development, for which the entity evolved within its natural environment.

The ultimate environment may be physical in nature such as the universe (what we perceive reality to be) or ultimately the environment may be abstractual in nature (an appearance of reality) as is the case of the universe being located ‘within’ the abstractual as proposed by the new metaphysical system of symbiotic panentheism, the individual acting within God

The metaphysical model presented within this work evolves through the process of examining answers to the twelve questions and in particular the first three questions in a specific order. 

v        

The point: Philosophers can come to a semblance of consensus as to what is ‘reality’ and what is ‘appearance’ if they priorities their questions, focus upon the task of answering their questions one at a time as best they can, and then address the next question. The process suggested is not an evasion of ‘truth’. The process suggested is an understanding that ‘truth’ is not an easy thing to find and even science bases its development of truth upon establishing models as best they can and then moving towards answering the next question and then developing conclusions implied by such a model. Scientific models change all the time and there is no reason philosophy should feel any less of itself if it uses such a process. The process works well for science and there is no reason the same process should not work well for philosophy.

Mary AnnS: I am fascinated by your endeavor and the amazing work you have done!