In this series the fundamental model of life has been found in distinction itself. We see in distinction not just a process of the mind, but the very essence of the world. We have sought this theory with the goal of coming to terms with
conflict, increasing our
strength and enhancing our
virtuosity in life. This conception was seen to provide a basis of meaning by removing the
arbitrary. We've seen how it allows us to see
all as good. We've found it may just release us from the impositions of even our most invincible
opponents. Even where the very model of distinction breaks down we find it is still in full force recognizing the contradiction that exposes the flaw is itself a distinction pointing to alternate contexts in a wider reality untroubled by the same contradiction. At our boldest, we've suggested that contradiction is the essence of distinction itself, that very symmetry resolving the ultimate contradiction that anything exists at all.
Quite an ambitious theory. While the best it seems to offer is to experience conflict with proportion, the recasting of our reality it enables, even admitting
the magical, does seem to offer a change in the conflicts which we are compelled to enter into as well as grace while in them. But still there are questions some have that at first appearances aren't answered by this theory. Not everyone is comfortable seeing the universe as a mirror image of themselves. This leaves only them in their universe, and what if they don't want to be the only one accountable for the state of affairs? To them this theory doesn't resolve conflict, but creates it. What do we say to them? We claim all is right, after all. We should be able to accommodate this perspective too.
This theory admits theory itself. That distinction, the fundamental component of modeling, is the very model itself in this case brings all other models under this one. For those that reciprocate, admitting contexts wider than distinction and modeling distinction in its generality, we have then just another perspective on the same model, their mutual description making them equivalent. This very fact may disqualify distinction as a successful model to some since a condition of correctness to them may be that the competing model is to be considered categorical, admitting no other interpretations, certainly not an interpretation positing the world as a one-to-one inverted copy of ourselves. To the distinction modeler, this is acceptable state of affairs, introducing a contradiction in the existence of a model that is equivalent yet not. Our task then is to find resolutions to that contradiction that put us in harmony with our disagreeing modeling friend. Below we will discuss those models or conceptions of reality involving an intelligent creator. Characterizing the existence of God as a model alone might be seen as contentious. But faith itself seems to have no meaning with out accepting as certain something that is merely possible. So, possibly proponents of these conceptions will agree with the understanding of life as born purely from distinction. But just as distinctly possible is that they will disagree even while their conceptions give equal rise to the phenomenon of humans capable of distinction, and therefore, seemingly the model of distinction we use here. But, just as these concepts of reality allow for our existence as distinguishing individuals, the concept of distinction as reality allows for the experience of ultimate beings.
Who is our friend? Who is our enemy? Who is our detractor and who is our benefactor? The world is lonely when it is just us and our mirror. But it is not lonely when we are with our friends. Which is it? Are we alone or accompanied?
When we are alone, we are at one. When we are accompanied, we are separate. Is it a contradiction that we can at once be alone, and at the same time accompanied? When we are alone, when it is just us and everything that is not us, or our mirror, any individual we may perceive is only a point in that reflection of ourselves. But that does not mean that individual is not separate, for we are surely to that individual merely a reflection in return. And though that person's existence as separate is contingent on our distinction, we can continue to appreciate the actuality of that person, for the implications of what distinguishes that person, whether or not that person is conceptually actual, are the same. When we distinguish them we interact with them.
When we perceive ourselves to possess things of value, it is not necessary, but certainly possible to also consider ourselves as beneficiaries of those things. Once we've distinguished ourselves as beneficiaries we immediately find ourselves in the position of naming two other categories of actor in life, our detractors and benefactors. One takes from us, the other gives to us. As we look to the items of value in our life with the least obvious of benefactors, or the loss with most difficult to attribute of detractors, we approach the the idea of an ultimate being. That we might see that being as having human form is no surprise, for we can't communicate with a thing that can't be communicated to. It isn't necessary, but as we described, once distinguished that actor in our lives will have the same implications regardless of the agreement of our conception with that of others. However we distinguish those acting in our life, their impact on us will correspond to the distinction that describes them.
When we see ourselves as one, we see that our greatest adversaries have weakness. Or that we are never without hope. How can we defeat what surely must be the most inescapable of impositions on us, the inescapable fact that to each thing exists its opposite? We want good things in our life, not bad, not neutral or void. How do we overcome that all things are ultimately in complete balance? By being the asymmetry. By taking every conflict and choosing from the contradiction in it the context that is good to us, always walking in the direction of right, of good. Who is the benefactor of the existence of this capability of ours to create such a contradictory asymmetry in our lives?
We won't answer here. Even with this discussion we will probably find this concept of ultimate beings to cause some to see the subject as consonant, some as irrelevant, while some others to find great conflict with the concept. But we will observe in common with certain other conceptions of reality requiring ultimate beings a belief that may be compelled to us by distinction as reality. To be with our benefactor more than our detractor, we may have to find good for both, for they are both ultimately us.
tags: science correspondence distinction philosophy god meaning spirituality choice