In the Image of God : Chapter 21 : The Point

peculation 2950 A.D.: It is now nine hundred fifty four years since the beginning of our journey and mathematics is still blossoming and blooming while morality is languishing and reeling in its ability to define itself. After one thousand years, religious leaders, philosophers, and mathematicians decide to get together again in an effort to bring the issues of morality into the realm of logic. A major gathering of the greatest thinkers takes place within the confines of our reservations. The conference begins with an analysis of two of the most important realms of humankind, faith and logic.

We begin working in unison to find where we went wrong. We work in hopes of building a foundation of strength and universality for morality, for perceptions of ourselves. We hope to build a foundation of logic for morality that is as strong as the foundation of logic is for mathematics.

The chosen field of mathematics is geometry, a field created from conceptions just as is morality. Geometry and morality are constructed in essence upon identical foundations: nothingness, voids, and imaginary perceptions. Geometry and morality each proceed to use this imaginary foundation built upon nothingness and proceed to define absolutes. Both believe they are defining "right" and "wrong," concepts within the realm of their "expertise."

Geometry and morality both influence our behavior through the process of persuading us that they know of what they speak. The attendees start by examining the foundation of geometry since it has been so successful at gaining universal acceptance. This is to be followed by examining the foundation of morality - a foundation creating a world riddled with violence and conflict. The hope of the conference is to create a foundation for morality with which all can identify without destroying cultures, traditions, and principles. This foundation will be in its infancy. It will be built upon logic and faith. This will give us a strength that we cannot find while resting upon our present foundation of faith alone.

Morality defines our concepts of "right" and "wrong" as actions within reality that we perceive need to take place in order to fulfill our perceived function in eternity. Geometry defines our concept of defining "right" and "wrong" as properties of reality within which we act. We need a logical perception of the function of our reality in order to fulfill a perceived function in eternity. Geometry and morality both deal with a reality of which we have no absolute conception and through which we journey for a reason we have not universally defined.

Geometry and Its Foundation: Mentally take a circle and place it in a specific location in front of your eyes and slowly begin to shrink it in size. Now begin to accelerate your shrinking process until you are going so fast with your implosion that you are approaching the speed of light. Continue the acceleration to the speed of light and still you have not reached the concept of just how small a point is.

Geometry is a subject built upon the concept of a point, a concept of a location in space, a location so small it has no dimension of length, no dimension of height, and no dimension of depth. This three dimensional concept is so small it has absolutely no size at all, yet this concept has a specific location in space and time, therefore existing because it is a concept taking up space since it "is." It is located in space and defines space.

If we take enough of these points, objects with no dimensions, and place them end to end in a "straight" direction, we begin the construction of a line, an object in space with one dimension, the dimension of length. A line is a concept with length but without height or depth since it is built of an infinite number of points laid end to end, and points lack height and depth. By definition, the line has no height or depth.

If we take lines and begin building a wall by laying them one upon another, infinitely long and infinitely high, we have what is called a plane, a "flat" surface, a concept now having two dimensions, length and height, but lacking the third dimensions of depth. A plane has no depth since it is composed of lines, which have no depth because they are composed of points having no depth.

If we take planes and begin building an environment by laying planes one against the other, we begin to construct a three dimensional object or what is better known as space. If we continue to sandwich an infinite number of planes, we begin to build space containing the property of infinity - a three dimensional concept. Never lose track of the fact, however, that no matter how fast we build space, it still can be extended into the reaches of infinity and, therefore, its infiniteness is never as infinite as it could be or will be.

Now place that three dimensional object, quantified by the concept of infinity, and add to it the concept of existence before, existence now, and existence after and you have space within the concept of relative time. And that is the mathematical construction of reality, our universe, from the concept of nothing since all of it is based upon the concept of a point which in turn is so small it has no size. Mathematics then proceeds to define concepts, objects, relative locations, motion, interactions, order, chaos, paradoxes, and reality. All these concepts are created within nothingness and accepted as something.

Individual mathematical topics, the whole net formed by the intermeshing of all mathematical fields, are built on the foundation of geometry. Geometry is a mathematical field defining the parameters of reality within which we, as journeying entities, travel. Our basic mathematical concept of reality is defined through the basic concept of a point and a point is a concept having no physical properties other than having no length, width or height. In other words, reality is a concept having no physical existence.

In essence, all of mathematics is built upon the framework of the universal foundations of geometry. If mathematics is allowed to build upon the concept of a foundation of nothingness and be accepted, shouldn’t a universal philosophy built upon the foundation of something be even more acceptable? If mathematics can be accepted, in general, as an absolute, why not philosophy? And why do we continue to regard mathematics as an absolute when its foundation of reality is built entirely within a realm of nothingness?

The conferees look at this later when we see that morality also lacks substance to its foundation. One thing we recognize is that geometry has been wonderfully successful in convincing people to accept its logic while morality remains in constant turmoil. Morality rests on a foundation of emptiness and needs a major renovation of its foundations in order to withstand the ordeals of the next millennium.

Morality and its foundation: What is morality? We understand morality is a concept. We, for the most part, accept its concepts. We do so through faith, through an inner "gut" feeling of what is "right" and what is "wrong." We do not, however, understand the logic behind morality, the overall picture of morality, because we do not understand who we are, what our purpose is in reality, what reality is, and who our fellow man is. We do not understand what the function of awareness is, whether it be in us or in some other life form.

An understanding of the logic of morality is a big picture incorporating all moral issues. With it comes an understanding that each principle is only one of many, intertwined to form a net. The net holds us up to a behavioral expectation. It leads towards the end goal of accomplishing our function in reality, both as individuals and as a species.

We accept "morality" based upon faith in our spiritual leaders, based upon our collective power to protect each other, based upon what we sense from the depths of our "souls." Morality is a series of perceived behaviors considered to be "right" or "wrong." "Right" and "wrong" are perceptions based upon our sense of principles that are frequently derived from religious, cultural, and family traditions, and definitions. We have accepted these traditions and definitions for thousands of years based on trust. We have not questioned or demanded proof of their validity. In other words, the definition of trust and lack of questioning interprets into the concept of actions accepted through faith.

Faith is a concept of trust that is not questioned. Faith, religious or otherwise, is a concept we have been willing to accept for thousands of years. Faith is a process of us telling others what we have been told or believe others should accept regarding their behavior. Faith is a concept built on a foundation that is not questioned and is accepted with trust.

What is faith built on? Rather than starting with nothing as we did with geometry and building something within which all of mathematics can function, let’s start with what we have and work back to our foundation so we can examine just what it is our moral behavior is built upon. Let’s take the attribute of power as an example.

Power is a phenomenally important aspect that all people wield over others at some time in their mortal existence. Power is an aspect that generates horrendous trauma for humankind when abused. Abuse of power is a behavior so common it permeates every nook and cranny of our social, political, religious, economic, health, and moral aspects. Power is a concept horrendously influential regarding interactions existing between each other, between ourselves and our environment, and between ourselves and our own personal journey through reality. Power plays such a primary part in society that it is one of the primary attributes that we attempt, directly as well as indirectly, to curtail through the moral definition of acceptable behavior. Power is an aspect we attempt to constrain through the use of religions, traditions, and culture. Still we are not able to contain its negative aspects. Why? Because our morality is built within faith alone, our faiths and lack of faiths lack a foundation.

To illustrate this, the conference attendees begin to look at society and the abuse of power existing within it as just one of a myriad number of categories they could choose.

From the realm of power, they refine the topic and choose the category of abuse of a wife by a husband: This is not a phenomenon characteristic to any one culture, race, religion or society. It is world-wide. It is common in every society, every city, every neighborhood. It runs the gambit of physical abuse to verbal abuse. It is so widespread, it would be considered a universal negative for humankind. It is a form of abuse of power - physical, emotional, and economic. It is a lack of understanding of one’s function in reality, of what reality itself is.

If you examine the action of hitting one’s spouse and ask, "Why is this wrong?", the answers vary widely:

  1. It’s wrong.
  2. It’s not Christian.
  3. It hurts someone.
  4. It is not right to hit a woman.
  5. It is not right to hit someone smaller than you, etc.

If you then ask what these five statements mean, you get answers that do not reach to the very essence of who we are. Rather you get shallow answers, such as:

  1. Because.
  2. Because God says so.
  3. Because it’s against the law.
  4. Because one should do unto others as one would have others do unto themselves, etc.

This is not to imply that such answers are worthless, for they are better than no answer at all.

If you proceed to follow, again and again with the question, "Why?", you soon reach the point where the one being questioned becomes frustrated and attempts to change the conversation. In other words, we have no conception of the logic behind our faiths, our morality conceptions. We base all our morals upon faith and upon no logic beyond reality.

Why don’t we understand the logic behind our moral conceptions? We don’t understand the most basic of basics. We don’t have an understanding of who we are, what our purpose in reality is. It is this purpose, this function, that must be understood in order to define ourselves. Once we are able to define ourselves within reality, we can begin to understand through logic why spousal abuse in any form is immoral.

Now we see the problem. Now it becomes clear why mathematics has been successful and grown over the last thousand years while morality lies languishing. Mathematics has a universally accepted a foundation upon which it defines reality. The concept is that of a point - a location in space so small it has no size, and from this, mathematics builds a three-dimensional reality immersed in a concept that does not exist - time.

Morality has no such universally defined foundation. Morality is missing an accepted "universal foundation." Morality is missing a universal philosophy strong enough and general enough to carry us ahead, to allow us to raise ourselves to infinitely higher levels of significance within reality. Geometry is strong enough and general enough to act as the foundation that allows all of mathematics to continually raise itself to new and exciting levels. Why can’t morality have a base that would allow itself to do the same?

Attendees of the conference begin to ask fundamental questions and answer them in as broad a manner as possible to see what the outcome may be. They decide to stay with the concept with which they have been working: male abuse of a spouse. Put in its most basic of basic forms, questions arise and answers emerge:

  1. What is God? God is the creator of our reality.
  2. What is reality? Since God is omnipresent, reality is a location within God.
  3. Does reality have a function? God doesn’t deal with triviality, so reality must have a function.
  4. What is the most important thing we could conceive which God would need to do? God needs to grow, for nothing we know of can remain in eternal equilibrium.
  5. What would be the most important function our reality could have in regards to God? The most important function reality could have would be to increase God’s omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience.
  6. Do we exist? Existence of some form is a basic premise.
  7. Where are we? We are in reality, which is in God. We are in God.
  8. Are we just a thing? No, we are more than a "thing." We learn, create, reason, rationalize. We have awareness of awareness.
  9. Who created us? God created us in Its image.
  10. Is the image of God the same as our body? Most probably not.
  11. Are the body and mind our essence? No, the body and mind are but our machines, the image of God travels within.
  12. What is our true essence? Our true essence is the soul, God.
  13. Are we God? We are a piece of God and therefore in essence, we are God.
  14. How does this explain the immorality of abuse of power? Abuse of power is directed at other individuals or the environment within which we travel. This interferes with the journey of God, with the very purpose of reality itself, with the purpose of all souls to increase God’s omnipotence, omnipresence, and omniscience.
  15. What is a woman? Women are souls, a piece of God.
  16. Is a woman different than a man? A woman is no different than a man. Both are pieces of God traveling reality for a purpose. A female is a soul traveling reality within a different machine than the male machine.
  17. What is wrong with men abusing women? Interfering with the journey of a female is detrimental to a journey of God, to God’s desire to grow. God’s conscious decision to travel reality within the body of a female has no less relevance than Its decision to travel within the body of a male. God chooses the female body for the same reason It chooses a male body. Each has special attributes that the other means of travel within reality do not have. Each allow God to perceive and experience reality in a unique manner.
  18. Why shouldn’t I dominate my wife? She is a woman. If one does not want to cross God or interfere with God’s journey, one had better not cross or interfere with the journey of a woman or anyone else, for that matter.

A foundation begins to take form. The conference attendees begin to see the formation of a logical base for morality that is strong enough and general enough to carry into the next millennium. The attendees begin to see a pattern forming that fits a philosophy that developed during the 1900’s, the philosophy of panentheism. Surprised and elated, the conferees test the thought again on concepts of social abuse of criminals, educational abuse of children, authority abusing employees, homophobia, pedophilia, environmental abuse, etc. In all cases, surprising new and humane insights and solutions crop up. This new foundation, panentheism, provides a panorama of our purpose in reality and reality itself. It provides us with an understanding of acceptable behaviors and why they are acceptable. But logic is not enough; it cannot successfully stand on its own. We need faith, religions. But faith, on the other hand, is not enough. As we have seen over the last thousand years, faith cannot stand alone. Faith rests on a foundation of emptiness, a foundation lacking logic. We need a universal foundation, a universal philosophy of logic upon which faith can rest.

Can panentheism stand by itself as a foundation set against the stark skyline of our past and future? A foundation without a structure built upon it is as useless as a complex structure built upon a weak foundation. Panentheism cannot stand alone. It is a foundation only and foundations are meant to have something built upon them. Foundations are meant to be continually reinforced if they have a continually growing structure built upon them. We are continually growing; therefore, panentheism also will need to grow.

Is panentheism the ultimate philosophy? No, nothing can remain in equilibrium and if we sit back and allow panentheism, a new foundation, to remain stagnant, we will find this foundation eventually crumbling, which will bring civilization to a spectacular collapse more grand than has ever been produced.

We begin to see the light. We begin to realize that we are not the center of reality any more than the earth is the center of the universe, no more than the sun is the center of the galaxy, no more than our galaxy is the center of our Klein bottle. No, we are not the essence of God, but God is the essence of us. We are not the primary tool for God’s growth, but we are an important tool for God’s growth, for our own growth. We are beginning to grasp our place in reality, our purpose in reality. We are ready to accept our significance to God. We begin to thank the androids, understanding that we would never have come to terms with ourselves until we had time to reflect upon who we really are in reality. We were given time to heal by an entity we thought was turning on us. We realize now that our creation, the androids, had a better understanding of who we really are than we had of ourselves.

We begin to heal. We begin to grow up. We begin to accept our uniqueness in reality while, at the same time, accepting the uniqueness of all beings within reality. We are ready to finally work with others in the quest to travel through space, through time, through reality.