AQUARIAN PHILOSOPHY - God use in

AQUARIAN PHILOSOPHY

TO WHAT ARE YOU WILLING TO COMMIT YOURSELF IN COMMUNICATION?

…check the names you predicate on to answer. They show your metaphysical commitment. (Context: pitch to go with the poll question “Do you think Katrina was an Act of God”?)

From opinion, plus reasons, comes judgment. From judgment, plus will, comes commitment (assertion, action, further predication).

Opinion – judgment – assertion: this is the sequence of rational being-manifestation. Philosophy is love of rational being-manifestation.

****/

Before the sequence begins there must be communication. No people exchanging information, sharing mental states and contents of every sort, no opinions based on reasons, judged to justify acts of will in assertion. No philosophy.

There is one and only one constant in communication of whatever kind: use of signs. A “sign”, by definition, is something that stands for something other than itself. But, as content, signs ARE things themselves – lines of print, sound sequences, signal-movements, etc., as well as all pictures. Some signs standing for things besides themselves that include themselves; the word “word”, for instance. Such forms of sign use, though noticed, for example by Bertrand Russell in his remarks on illegitimate totalities, have not been previously put in their proper logical space, as structuring discourse. The TEXT/TOKEN congruencies that natural spoken words coin for us – remembering to remember; the signs of time signs (Zodiacal gyyphs) – are highly valuable windows into the unconscious. This is only one of many formal dynamic structures shaping new communication.

The FORMAL d/s are those that are metaphysically grounded: the way things have to be. Laws dictating necessity at the higher level define the limits lower order processes must observe. “Even God can’t trump the Ace” in a bridge game. It’s not a “limit on his power”. The notion of “his power” isn’t relevant to the rules defining game situations.

Introduction of the word “God” here is propitious, for the AQUARIAN PHILOSOPHY will be distinguished from the PISCEAN, in general outlook, by a new use. That is, if “ACT OF GOD” is predicated of Katrina. That is the metaphysical challenge of the new age. The fact that the term IS USED certainly cannot be ignored. Dwelling on it, as a fact in its own right, as religionists are often given to doing (“if God didn’t exist, all history would be a lie”), goes over to the relation of psychology to anatomy in macro-totalities. Musn’t God-use have survival value? On what terms and assumptions?

*****/

The metaphysical basis of a “Yes” answer to “Was Katrina an Act of God” is, that the act of commitment to seeing it from a total national perspective, through which it is brought into psychological relation to Iraq war guilt, will itself create a channel through which the will-to-assert passes over into fact. This is NOT the same as saying “believing makes it so,” though closely akin. The denial of the proposition is, according to the argument, commitment to a lesser metaphysical perspective, ex hypothesi bereft of the feed-back resonances and other karmic determinants that go with committed participation. That cannot be consistently willed from/as totality. Therefore totality of will can be directed only toward tokens of completion; that is, toward signs functionally equivalent with English God-use.

This argument agrees with what I understand to be the over-lapping points of John Calvin – the dimension of free will as metaphysically ultimate; Immanuel Kant – moral argument for the existence of God; J.P. Sartre – false consciousness denies it’s freedom … and, in fact, to capture the inescapable logic of the reality of modernism; magnified now in the post-modern, New Age of sin most grievous.