If we are driving (conscious) the paradigms are persistently challenged and the false realities are rejected in layers of abstraction leading to higher and higher states. From this motion, we (each of us) moves closer and closer to where Truth lies by stripping away the falsehoods.
If 'truth' is always in motion, then are we not by your definition then rather moving closer and closer to a simpler understanding of nature (or the most purest of all 'states' ) ? Ie- since truth 'something that cannot change' cannot exist.
If this assertion is 'true' then perhaps the next question is are we in the process of driving nature or merely understanding it? Stated otherwise, are our thoughts/actions/efforts creating reality - or are we simply 'adhering' to reality and therefore reality is creating us...
If everything which is sensible within the conscious experience of the variety of ONEs (so-called individuals) amounts merely to self-limitation and selfishness, what is the point of existence? What reason, or end, had the ALL to differentiate into the multitude of ONEs? If you are not able to answer that question, there can be no morality in your system, nor any serious metaphysics: we are simply energy caught up in motion, where our every intentional state arises from selfish illusion. It seems like you're trying to physicalize either a Gnostic set of beliefs, or perhaps Hinduism. I get the feeling this is some kind of mashup of vocabulary from Aristotle's Physics with Hindu cosmology.
The intent on naturalizing, or "physicalizing" the supernatural, is the only thing I was able to glean from his messages. Maybe I was just tired at the time, but I see this kind of stuff and my eyes glaze over. There are too many internet atheists who think they're the smartest guys around because they confidently screech "MORALITY IS ATOMS, GOD IS THE UNIVERSE"
Appeal to authority is not being made. One can understand the need for something like God according to reason. Assent to, or rejection of, other Divine attributes is made by faith.
No one is worshipping Aquinas here; he's not an idol. He is just one providing argument, as you are now.
God is not an idol; He is the Most High - that is the essence to which I and Aquinas refer when using the nominal label of "God".
"(((They)))" reject the Most High as Self-Recealed to us. The Most High is the One.
I don't mean to be dismissive, but you just don't seem to be saying much of substance. I don't "get" what the point is that you're trying to make. You acknowledge the "One", okay. But then you seem confused about the nature of language, reasoning, and truth - a kind of "all perceivables are illusions", a Hindu maya taken to an extreme.
Not only is it uninteresting, but untenable. If the universe is not intelligible and man cannot apprehend the Logos, then all discussion and thought is vain - a position which would invalidate all belief, including the belief in that very vanity.
(post is archived)