Personal pantheistic God

[The Sum of Awe]

Does anyone else hold a pantheist view of God, that is personal and, in some way, aware?

 

[Jimmy]

For me, God is the Universe but also the one he chose on earth to fulfill his infinite cycle is an intricate part of him. Aware? Yes my God is living. It is through his infinite reach that makes him a living being and from whom all life exists.

Note: I believe there’s only one universe.

 

[Quintessence]

Sort of?

As I reject the notion that the gods and reality are somehow not the same thing - that the gods are immanent - that puts me in the spectrum of pantheism.

And as the gods and reality are multitudinous and diverse, at least some of those gods are inevitably what one could call "personal" (though I routinely become confused about what that is supposed to mean) and what one would call "aware." I would argue all things are aware because they can't not be aware - in order for two things to interact with each other in any way they have to be aware of one another. Oxygen doesn't bond with two hydrogens if the two are not aware of each other's existences. The bond is an interaction, a relational exchange, that requires a sensing of another's presence to be able to do something in response. But that is animist thinking and very foreign to most. Mainstream culture denies the awareness and animacy of the universe.

 

[Valjean]

I'm trying to figure out how either a god or individual self would fit into a pantheistic universe.

 

[Quintessence]

I'm trying to figure out how either a god or individual self would fit into a pantheistic universe.

Pretty easily. This is kind of like asking how a tree fits into a forest. An odd question, in many respects.

 

[Valjean]

Pretty easily. This is kind of like asking how a tree fits into a forest. An odd question, in many respects.

Pantreeism posits only one, essential tree.

 

[Quintessence]

Pantreeism posits only one, essential tree.

Sometimes. Pantheism and panentheism don't address the "how many are the gods" as there are both monotheistic and polytheistic flavors. Blimey, atheistic pantheism and panentheism is a thing, though I personally have trouble squaring that circle.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Sort of?

As I reject the notion that the gods and reality are somehow not the same thing - that the gods are immanent - that puts me in the spectrum of pantheism.

And as the gods and reality are multitudinous and diverse, at least some of those gods are inevitably what one could call "personal" (though I routinely become confused about what that is supposed to mean) and what one would call "aware." I would argue all things are aware because they can't not be aware - in order for two things to interact with each other in any way they have to be aware of one another. Oxygen doesn't bond with two hydrogens if the two are not aware of each other's existences. The bond is an interaction, a relational exchange, that requires a sensing of another's presence to be able to do something in response. But that is animist thinking and very foreign to most. Mainstream culture denies the awareness and animacy of the universe.

I agree with your definition of aware. It isn't like Oxygen and Hydrogen particles are two smiling figures that say "Hey, Hydrogen, nice day today! Want to bond?" "Sure, Oxygen!" and another Hydrogen comes in, "Hey guys, can I join?" - but in a way they are aware in that they interact and influence each other. Am I understanding you right?

Would you say that this type of awareness could bring the intention of existence, and thereby giving existence a form of meaning?

I'm curious how your gods are divided? Is Earth a god? What about the individual particles that make up the earth? What about half of the individual particles that make up the earth as a collective? Where is the division? Sorry if I'm completely making wrong assumptions about your theology.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

I'm trying to figure out how either a god or individual self would fit into a pantheistic universe.

My answer would be, individuality and the division of things is illusion. There is only one thing that exists and that is God.

 

[Valjean]

My answer would be, individuality and the division of things is illusion. There is only one thing that exists and that is God.

Exactly! Multitudinous gods and individual observers don't fit the usual definition of pantheism.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Exactly! Multitudinous gods and individual observers don't fit the usual definition of pantheism.

I agree. Were you responding to Quintessence?

 

[Valjean]

Yes.

 

[Quintessence]

I agree with your definition of aware. It isn't like Oxygen and Hydrogen particles are two smiling figures that say "Hey, Hydrogen, nice day today! Want to bond?" "Sure, Oxygen!" and another Hydrogen comes in, "Hey guys, can I join?" - but in a way they are aware in that they interact and influence each other. Am I understanding you right?

Yes, I find it important to be too anthropocentric in how things are viewed. Awareness as a state does not need to be defined in such strictly human terms that one then starts anthropomorphizing conversations in human languages by molecules and particles. Telling the story that way can be a strong teaching tool - that is a big reason why the gods are often described in humanoid terms in spite of being not human - it is just easier for humans to understand things when put into anthropocentric frames of reference sometimes.

Would you say that this type of awareness could bring the intention of existence, and thereby giving existence a form of meaning?

I don't know. I don't know that I really think about it that way. I focus on what is. What is... that's definitive and observable. Intentions are not and thus in some respect not relevant or important. It doesn't matter to me if Moon "intended" to be present for my ritual today, they simply were. I look at what is. That too, has meaning. Being that-which-is together, in the same times and spaces, interacting, relating, influencing. That-which-is... is pretty awesome and amazing.

I'm curious how your gods are divided? Is Earth a god? What about the individual particles that make up the earth? What about half of the individual particles that make up the earth as a collective? Where is the division? Sorry if I'm completely making wrong assumptions about your theology.

Nah, you're good. I usually frame my theology as polytheistic pantheism with animism - the gods are many (polytheism), the gods are nature (pantheism), and nature is peoples not things (animism). The word "god" is like a title attributed to something in the human experience - something worthy of worship, devotion, regard, respect, etc. For me, the study of biological sciences (especially ecology) led to an inescapable recognition of human dependency on non-human others (nature). And after I got out of the thought-cage I'd been stuck in culturally about the g-word, it was pretty inevitable for me to understand the gods as our ancestors did - as all those greater-than-human things around us that make the world what it is. How that gets divided up varies quite a lot from culture to culture but it comes out of direct interaction with the world/gods.

Since I did not grow up in (or live in) a polytheistic, pantheistic, or animistic culture I have had to just explore and learn for myself. It is a lot of work, but honestly? Relationships should be and I'm not sure I'd have it any other way. You get to build in a way that feels right and healthy in your life, letting it flow and change as it needs to. It is rooted directly in what you personally experience and know. I don't personally experience or know "individual particles that make up the earth" so they are not something I develop a relationship of worship and devotion with. Someone else might, though. I'm not sure I really experience Gaea (earth) at all, really -too big. I work more local than that. I have tapped into the Earth Current and sometimes... sometimes you get to know the limits of what you should and shouldn't try to interact with haha. Do not commune to deep with Ocean lest you drown in Them, that sort of thing.

 

[The Sum of Awe]

Yes, I find it important to be too anthropocentric in how things are viewed. Awareness as a state does not need to be defined in such strictly human terms that one then starts anthropomorphizing conversations in human languages by molecules and particles. Telling the story that way can be a strong teaching tool - that is a big reason why the gods are often described in humanoid terms in spite of being not human - it is just easier for humans to understand things when put into anthropocentric frames of reference sometimes.


I don't know. I don't know that I really think about it that way. I focus on what is. What is... that's definitive and observable. Intentions are not and thus in some respect not relevant or important. It doesn't matter to me if Moon "intended" to be present for my ritual today, they simply were. I look at what is. That too, has meaning. Being that-which-is together, in the same times and spaces, interacting, relating, influencing. That-which-is... is pretty awesome and amazing.

That’s true. I like to focus on what is as well, but sometimes I do get curious about whether there is an overarching purpose to why we exist. In any case, if it was important I’m sure we’d know. What is is most important.

Nah, you're good. I usually frame my theology as polytheistic pantheism with animism - the gods are many (polytheism), the gods are nature (pantheism), and nature is peoples not things (animism). The word "god" is like a title attributed to something in the human experience - something worthy of worship, devotion, regard, respect, etc. For me, the study of biological sciences (especially ecology) led to an inescapable recognition of human dependency on non-human others (nature). And after I got out of the thought-cage I'd been stuck in culturally about the g-word, it was pretty inevitable for me to understand the gods as our ancestors did - as all those greater-than-human things around us that make the world what it is. How that gets divided up varies quite a lot from culture to culture but it comes out of direct interaction with the world/gods.

Since I did not grow up in (or live in) a polytheistic, pantheistic, or animistic culture I have had to just explore and learn for myself. It is a lot of work, but honestly? Relationships should be and I'm not sure I'd have it any other way. You get to build in a way that feels right and healthy in your life, letting it flow and change as it needs to. It is rooted directly in what you personally experience and know. I don't personally experience or know "individual particles that make up the earth" so they are not something I develop a relationship of worship and devotion with. Someone else might, though. I'm not sure I really experience Gaea (earth) at all, really -too big. I work more local than that. I have tapped into the Earth Current and sometimes... sometimes you get to know the limits of what you should and shouldn't try to interact with haha. Do not commune to deep with Ocean lest you drown in Them, that sort of thing.

Thanks for explaining!