Life Lived with the Perspective of God as the Only Being

John: In your previous email about MACBETH, when I said that Macbeth says that life has no meaning, you made a comment that Shakespeare is saying that life has no meaning! That’s not what Shakespeare was saying at all. Shakespeare was saying that, for Macbeth, who had violated all sense of morality by murdering, Macbeth had destroyed his own value system so that life no longer held any meaning. Shakespeare was not saying that life has no meaning. He was speaking from Macbeth’s broken perspective when he wrote that line. And that’s how I reached my conclusion that morality is part of hard reality, like physics. Morality has very little to do with religious faith, except to learn the warning from religion about the penalties for breaking morality.

Thomas: Again, yes, that was exactly my concept of what you were saying. My point was that Macbeth was just a sock puppet for Shakespeare. Shakespeare said everything in the entire play (not that he believed or advocated the perspective of every character, only that he put on that valence to dramatize humanity speaking from that personality-type.) Thus, it was from the worldview/character of Shakespeare that every character’s word was spoken, and in this sense, there was no one else speaking but Shakespeare.

But having said that and putting the wool back over our eyes (the pretense that there is a Macbeth, a man with his particular character/worldview/emotional habits/moral disposition), we see Macbeth speaking a particular perspective on life. Using Macbeth as a vehicle, Shakespeare gives us a dramatic presentation on how life could look as it did from Macbeth’s perspective (his upbringing, his traumas, his lessons and successes…). In that dramatization, the vignette of life seen through and colored by that lens, and we see a lesson, a crystallization of life from that point of view.

And yes, when having seen the devastation that Macbeth experienced by living life without the proper perspective of Right/Good/Godly/Reality-based/action-consequence-rule reality we see that morality is a categorization of the rules of life/the heuristics of actions he/we choose by so organizing life. We see clearly in this light that there is an absolute map of morality, which reflect/categorize the consequences of certain choices, in a certain context, which dramatize the effects produced in reality. In this play, we see what one should do to have an excellent life, by consideration of the consequences of what happens when a man chooses the opposite.

I think the realization you came to is that religion/morality is an unnecessary overlay of reality. (Am I correct?) Your realization was that reality is reality, and that religion is simply talking about what is and what works. Your realization was that religion is simply talking about reality, rather than being reality, it is the map, not the territory. And further, I think the implication (because of previous conversations/knowing you and your leanings/beliefs) that you were getting a sense/realization that religion is an unnecessary step/an overlay which is not fundamental. You are trying to live life and judge truth at a base level of reality. You want to go for the source, not the shadow, to learn directly from the purest lesson-giver, which is for you, reality. You have judged that what happens, the action and objects of life, are the fundamental reality, the bedrock of truth, the actual object. You see that religion is merely a story about the more fundamental “what is” and ”what’s so” about life. Am I correct?

Of course, I agree. Reality is the final arbiter of Truth. And assuming I have accurately judged your motivation/conclusion/perspective, let us explore whether there is another even deeper perspective than physical reality. I believe that there is a spiritual nature, a finer realm which infuses/underlies the world of reality, and that it is this world of which religion speaks. The perspective that Reality is the fundamental arbiter of truth is one perspective, and the most obvious one to the eye which cannot see the spiritual world (which is all of us). There may be a little objective proof/evidence that reality includes a spiritual dimension, but that evidence generally requires inference, induction, and extrapolation of the meaning of pattern recognition. We are like the people living in “Flatland” who cannot perceive a 3rd dimension, but the movement of shadows indicate the presence of another dimension. I believe we are like fish in water, who do not realize or think much about the most obvious fact of their reality, that the live and swim in a medium which pervades every aspect of their lives.

To say, as you did, that religion speaks only of the rules which are present in reality is correct. But, again, this does not imply that there is not a more fundamental reality underneath reality, from which the rules of reality have arisen. And as I have stated, numerous times, this is my perspective. And, if this is the case, then studying the rules of that reality is even more direct/fundamental than studying the rules deduced from observing the cause-effect consequences/rules/relationships of physical reality.

I see God as the source of all reality, as the ultimate cause of all effects. (Any deeper/simpler/precursor/more fundamental reality is unfathomable, and any more complex assemblage of parts is superficial.) I believe that physical reality is the consequence of the substance of God’s mind.

I have elaborated and justified this postulate as a factual reality in my writing. I postulate that the method by which God manifested physical reality, was by looking at Himself from many points of view. I believe He gave each of these portals of perception persistence and independence, and the ability to “see” perceive His other portals of perception. Thus, in this conception, the universe is a collection of innumerable viewers, portals from which God’s mind looks at other portals of His own mind.

Thus, the substance of physical reality is composed of these zillion viewers. The object of observation is the other points of view, the other viewers, each of which see God, and the other portals of perspective compose physical reality. If this is true, then the “what is” of reality must be observed and the rules of life/cause-effect must be extracted from examination of this level.

If this postulate is correct, then we are spirits/sentient beings supervising a body-soul composed of innumerable points of perspective. I postulate that we, as conscious beings, are but one of God’s points of view, that we are one point in God’s mind looking at the rest of the universe.

We are not God, but we are also not “not of God.” In my postulate, there is nothing which is not God in this fragmented/pointillistic sense of what actually composes reality. If this postulate is true, there is nothing which God does not see, hear, and feel, if in fact every point composing the universe has its origin from/by/within His mind. If He is the substance which underlies physical reality, our every act is felt by Him.

If we are, as stated in Scripture, created in His image, there is some way in which we are like Him. I take this verse to mean that we perceive what feels good and bad based upon His perception. But having said that, having a human/animal nature underlying our brain/reflexes/instinct, we are pulled to act out our animal drives, which may be in opposition to His plan/way of being for His own acts as God, and by extension, as humans.

Having noted that there is nothing which is not intimately connected to His mind and hence perception, there is nothing which He does not feel. To cope with the pain, I believe He dissociates/forgets/disconnects from/goes to sleep to/ignores… that which is painful. I justify that postulate based on the fac that this is a coping mechanism that humans use to tolerate the intolerable. I also see indications in Scripture that God turns His back on the unholy. He does not invite the unholy, the rebellious, the non-family into His intimate relationship. This is what He does to create a tolerable universe. Coping with feeling everything by shutting down/separating from that which is painful is understandable.

And given that God has free will, so do we. As a spirit, we are a single point of His consciousness, and just as He has free will, so do we. We have the prerogative/right/ability to do as we please with our bodies, minds, and hearts. It is such a strong drive that the Libertarian movement has based their platform fully on the right to do anything that they want, if it does not hurt anyone else. The problem is, that from man’s limited perspective, the harm done to others, to the harmony of life, to the joy of God is unseen. We are easily blinded by the personal pleasure we get, and thus the harm, pain caused to God, is disguised.

God has the same prerogative/right/ability to do as He pleases as we do. Exercising that right, He chose to create a universe from His own being, and He gave every point in the universe a nature, just as He has a nature. He has the potential of a zillion natures, but He has chosen the moral system that pleases Him, and it is that one that is rewarded and punished by reality. We don’t see Him executing judgment on anything, or on anyone. We only see reality administering the consequences of force and motion in physical reality. And of course, the physical laws of cause and effect appear impersonal, free of dogma or moral lesson. But, behind this appearance of objective physicality is God, and the rules which govern the motion of His points of view.

He is the source of everything. He has assigned a nature to every animal, whether by choice or by perfect adaptation to its environment, each animal spirit embodies a potential configuration of emotional-dispositional nature. While He was the organizing force for every animal, and the emotional nature of every animal, He has chosen to be/act out/exalt/revel in a subset of all possibilities of the totality of all acts. He has chosen a subset of that totality of all acts/natures to be/have/act and love.

God gave man, a spirit, the essence to choose any way of being. Jus as He is free to choose His subset of possibilities made available by nature, so is man. It is this separation, this choosing of the set of all acts to which He embraces, that defines or reflects His character. And having chosen a polarity, that which is of the same nature as Himself He takes into His intimate chamber, into His center, into His unprotected place, to fellowship with, to love. And given that He has embraced one aspect of the manifested world, and rejected the other, He hates that which opposes/destroys/overtakes/usurps His place of beauty and safety.

He is all, being the source of existence itself. But even though the universe arose from/by/in Him, He does not embrace/love/include/approve of those acts/configurations which are of His chosen way. He opposes all who rebel against/violate His standards and sully His beauty. Thus, He separates from that which rebels against Him, and He draws close to and blesses that which embraces His way.

Consider the implication of the following perspective in the light of the concept of God is simultaneously Himself, the man who has violated God’s way/nature/law, and the man who has been violated. In the above, I have postulated that God separates Himself from sin/unGodliness/acts which violate His standards of propriety.

Consider the case of being angry at another person because of an actual violation, a real true violation of nature (murder, rape/adultery, theft, perjury/false witness, violence…). Scripture presents a collage of God’s relationship to evil, “Vengeance is mine sayeth the Lord,” and “Owe no man anything but to love,” and “Against thee and thee alone have I sinned,” and “God hates evil.” The implication of this big-picture perspective is that it is God’s job to discipline wrongdoing because it is against Him that the offense was committed.

If God is Himself, the sinner, and the violated, this implies an ability to separate Himself into independent parts, each capable of independent moral choices. He has created a world where there is a meaningful/real relationship between independent beings because each party can make actual moral choices, each with different implications and consequences.

Scripture says, “God is love.” Since God feels everything, I believe God has the desire to feel love from every person toward every other person. I believe this is the fundamental motivating principle driving God’s morality/His character/His rules-laws governing the universe. I believe morality is a subset of that criteria, that He wants to expand His experience of love in His universe/in His body.

Why did Scripture say, “Vengeance is mine?” Possibly it is because if we hold ill will in our hearts, we are a source of pain to Him. If we take vengeance out of a spirit of revenge, rather than out of love that disciplines another in hopes of their rehabilitation/repentance, we are acting in a way that causes God more pain. In the scripture, we see that it is God’s job/role of disciplining and correcting those errant/rebellious/unpleasing aspects of Himself.

If we take vengeance, our correction if done in a spirit other than love, will be sin in its own right. If we act out of rage/impulsiveness, we will likely miss the mark and begin a new spiral of violation. When we act out of love and deep care for the other, the lesson can be seen as divine. When we act out of love, we leave room for Him to miraculously move circumstances. When we act out of love alone, the message is not confused with being an act of petty personal ego retaliation.

God can work through a word. His presence and acts can be silent, as seemingly random events, thoughts and choices arising as a message from widely dispersed people and times to create His outcome. It is for this reason that we should forgive and love, have pity on the sinner/the violator. In so doing we act as one of God’s cells, as His agent, one of His portals of perception and experience, one of His points of Consciousness which He has given independent thought, feeling, and will in executing His will.

He is the origin of all existence and the one who experiences all. It is in this way “we were created in His image.” We are all spirits from God, and God experiences all that we say, think, and do. We can influence the experience of others by our thoughts, words, and deeds. By choosing His morality, choosing His way of living within the reality of the laws of the universe He has created, we give Him an experience of joy. The result is that life works well when we obey His laws of physical-emotional-logical reality.

All that to say, I agree. The morality of formal religion is a crude approximation of the detail that is required to function in the universe perfectly. But, having said that, without a guide, however approximate, people tend to follow their passions, their habits, their animal instincts, and fall far afield of the perfection of God’s physical-emotional-logical reality.

It is for this reason that a study of the Bible (God’s revelation of His nature/what pleases Him), fellowshipping with other believers, supporting each other in the never-ending struggle to live perfectly/Godly is such a valuable, and necessary, effort. The rules of the Bible, and the rules of physical reality are the same to the perfectly rational omniscient being. But given that we are mere mortals, we do not naturally know/deduce/choose the perfectly rational choice that reality dictates.

Thomas