Worship & the pantheist
Since the pantheist is g.o.d. that is to say, a niche application1 of G.O.D., hence not different2 from G.O.D., she experiences no separate focus3 for worship.4 Hence she does not, in principle,5 worship.
What she does do, in place of worship as enactment of reverence, devotion or adoration, is to apply herself @100% to completing her niche function/app.6 By so doing she, as local app, emerges, together with the basic operating system on which she runs, as a real and identifiable enstasy7 ≈ quantum and so is fully compliant8 not only with her app as local ordering system but also with the basic operating system of ordering, namely G.O.D./Pan.
In other words, the pantheist ‘worships’ by enacting her differential niche function @100%,9 hence @1, and when local she-as-g.o.d. copy and G.O.D. both achieve momentary completion, that is to say, actual realness and identity.
© 2018 by Victor Langheld
1. For ‘niche application’ (i.e. as local app-as-order) read: a differential iteration of a basic ordering system or template.
2. That is to say, identical with; same. Because both g.o.d (as local, hence higher ordering system; natura naturata) and G.O.D. (as universal (or general), hence lower ordering system, natura naturans) are same, and sameness is compressed out during transmission, the lower order (i.e. complexity) ordering system, namely G.O.D. affects the receiver less than the higher order (complexity) ordering system, hence remains ‘invisible’, ‘untouchable’ and so on. That’s why G.O.D. cannot appear until the observer increases her reception sensitivity, that is to say, eliminates her niche responses to one final (as initial) response/app and when G.O.D. (i.e. the ground or basic ordering template emerging as original difference) appears as all-present. Put another way, since G.O.D. is same for all and sameness is compressed out during transmission/instruction, only difference (i.e. karmic) residue being transmitted, G.O.D. cannot be known (save by the ‘different’, i.e. by the G.O.D.-less and which be definition don’t exist as identifiable realities).
3. Since all (i.e. ‘nature naturing’, i.e. all order systems) operates as G.O.D. there is, in principle, no God (as superior ordering system) to worship. In practice, that is to say, at the higher order niche level, Gods (i.e. superior orders, i.e. ‘winners’, i.e. the survivors deemed ‘fittest’) are invented as role (specifically rule) models and as placebo devices designed to help recovery of the capacity for perfect, meaning @1 functioning/ordering.
4. The New Oxford Dictionary derives the word defines ‘worship’ from ‘worthy’. Hence it defines ‘worship’ as: the feeling or expression of reverence or adoration for a ‘worthy’, that is to say, an deity (or god); or, the acts or rites that make up a formal expression of reverence for a ‘worthy’, i.e. for a deity (or god); or, expression of adoration or devotion as acts of homage (i.e. as special honour or respect shown publicly).
5. In practice she does worship, her worship being her enactment of her niche function @100%. Then because, when in turmoil, i.e. when she experiences herself as a loser because operating @ less than 100% capacity, she derives cathartic (i.e. therapeutic) benefits from subordinating herself to seemingly superior (i.e. locally experienced as top-down, i.e. a ‘winner’ and therefore ‘worthy’) rule and which either boosts or upgrades her own (bottom-up) survival attempts capacity. In other words, by worshipping as ‘loser’ she ‘sucks up’ to the local winner and which ‘sucking’ (of the ‘winner’s’ higher quality transmissions) helps her pull/strap her boot out of the mire in which she is in. In short, ‘worship’ gives the loser (often presenting as devotee) an emotional and self-organisational leg up.
6. This notion of ‘worship’, namely the perfection of function, irrespective of content, hence applicable to all castes, was the basic thrust of the ancient Vedic religion ≈ worldly (hence pantheistic) practice. That made each actor responsible for their niche/world and the world-of-all-niches. Failure to complete the niche function @100% (i.e. @ perfection) was deemed ‘sinful’ and produced bad karmic residue for Brahmin and householder alike. For the householder, perfection of the three basic functions of life, namely kama, artha and dharma, promised moksha, i.e. release. Obviously such (pantheistic) ‘worship’ provided little political traction. For the caste member, perfection of caste function meant acquiring a better rebirth. With the invention of the Upanishads all that changed. Now the goal of the ‘perfect’ life/niche application was no longer to perfect life/niche application itself but to escape from life (as painful niche). The shift to the ideal of escapism (i.e. as ‘freedom from’) proved disastrous for India.
7. i.e. an ens ≈ a quantum as stable (or in stasis) unit; or a discrete whole ≈ @ min entropy because @ max. internal order (@ min internal entropy), hence having max. thermo-dynamic (external work/trasnmission) capacity. It is only with a differential (indeed random) ens (as quantum or sliced event) that contact (i.e. a strike or instruction) in a relativity vacuum can be made and a quantum of realness, i.e. a 1c2 moment, produced. An astasy (or ast), i.e. an increased internal entropy system, produces a less that @100% contact, therefore collides within a relativity space, therefore cannot produce a moment of actual realness and by repetition a decided identity.
8. For ‘compliant’ Christians might read: ‘obedient.’ The problem with obedience is that disobedience, indeed the capacity for error, hence for generating mutations) is part of the G.O.D. ordering operation, i.e. of the General Ordering Device and, indeed, of all its identical albeit differentially applied copies. So it happens that an app completes the basic operating system’s modus from which it has emerged ‘naturally’ by altering (i.e. upgrading) its rules, thus appearing disobedient.
9. In other words, the pantheist (and Calvinist) achieves ‘salvation’ by ‘work (meaning self-perfection as functional perfection) alone’ and not by ‘faith (as either trust or belief) alone’ as the populists St. Paul and Luther falsely claimed.