Is there Divinity?


Socrates almost had his finger on it when he posed the question, “Can man be made self-determined and responsible for his own actions?”

Plato lost it when he recommended the use of religion (supernatural authority and fear) to control the wild beast nature latent in every person.

Aristotle came close to defining it, but the logic that brought him so close to an understanding of divinity, also prevented him from defining it precisely. Let us take a look at that one final step that he could not take.

Aristotle follows Socrates’ lead to examine such common terms as, justice, morality, virtue, etc., to uncover the unknowing assumptions made by people. He applies Plato’s Doctrine of Ideas to voluminous observations to define the concepts, laws, and principles that underlie all that we sense. He coins many new terms, such as, faculty, motive, energy, actuality, maxim, principle, etc., to communicate those concepts precisely. He formulates a scientific method so others may continue with this process.

Aristotle digs deep into observations, especially in the field of biology and natural sciences, and comes up with general frame of references (universals) from which to evaluate further observations. Thus he simplifies the management of voluminous observations by uncovering categories with logical connections.

He, then, digs deep into these categories to come up with a more fundamental frame of reference. He reduces all observations to (a) FORM (the shaping force), and (b) MATTER (the raw material being shaped).

To Aristotle, FORM is the inner necessity or impulse which exists in MATTER. MATTER is continually being formed into new, complex shapes by FORM that is inherent to it.

Aristotle considers MATTER to be without beginning. MATTER is worked into more complex and varied shapes by FORM. To him, God is “Prime Mover Unmoved.” God is the source of all motion. But, God has no motion within itself.

Aristotle never answers the question how MATTER arose in the first place. To him, this is like asking the question, “How God came to be in the first place?” And, that is as far as Aristotle goes. The inherent consideration here seems to be that ability, or potential, needs a “vessel” through which to express itself.

We find most viewpoints in the “Western thought” to be based on this frame of reference. It leads to the viewpoint that God must have a beingness in which to exist.

Can there be God without beingness? Can there be FORM without MATTER? Can there be Motion with no motion at its core? Can there be a Cause that is not itself caused?



When we observe this universe, we cannot separate GOD from BEINGNESS, FORM from MATTER, MOTION from NO MOTION, and CAUSE from EFFECT.

These pairs, or dichotomies, appear simultaneously when a manifestation is perceived. Even the most fundamental ideas of MANIFESTATION and PERCEPTION seem to form a dichotomy. We all have struggled with the questions, “How does a manifestation appear?” “How is it perceived?” “Who or what creates?” “Who or what perceives?” The ultimate focus has been on “how,” “who” or “what.” It all boils down to the speculation that somebody or something must exist beyond all existence.

Essentially, the mind and its logic has hit a ceiling. Any attempt to pierce this ceiling runs into a fundamental  inconsistency, such as, “unmoved Mover” or ”uncaused Cause.”  This inconsistency seems to point to something that cannot even be conceived.

It would be beyond any mental conception. It would be beyond logic. It would be beyond any description. It would not be a form or cause. It would not even exist or be.

It would seem that

  1. A manifestation may occur without any prior consideration.
  2. A perception may occur without any prior consideration.

And in there, somewhere, may be Divinity, or may be not…

The Creation Hymn of Rig Veda

Neti, neti,”


Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.


  • Chris Thompson  On April 23, 2011 at 12:36 PM

    Good synopsis.

    As you so clearly agree, the usefulness of language breaks down entirely as it does not take us “where” we “want to go.”

    Or – maybe language is useful for in “not taking us there” it exploits a weakness in our question?

    I am becoming familiar with your writing and I voted 4 instead of 5 because you stop short of stating your hypothesis. Do you have one? This would be more scientific and courageous of you. Why don’t you just put together your opinion and throw it out there? I don’t mean your “lazy opinion” where you group all thoughts under the umbrella of “knowable” and thereby negate their usefulness for this question of divinity. Please move us forward rather than re-state your formidable studies. I have faith in you and think you can do this. Take the plunge – the worst that you could be is “wrong.” — It’s not so bad! haha

    “So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spew thee out of my mouth.” – Revelations 3:16, The Holy Bible (King James)


  • vinaire  On April 23, 2011 at 6:07 PM

    Well, I am giving you my hypothesis. This is as far as I can go, but there are big “blanks” on the way. The job now seems to be to fill in those “blanks.”

    Tell me what that quote from Revelations mean to you.



  • Chris Thompson  On April 23, 2011 at 9:07 PM

    I would not call this a hypothesis: “maybe, maybe not.”
    From me to you, this is not “as far as you can go.” It is only as far as you have gone. Also, I admire what you do and “where you have gone.”

    To me that Revelations quote is directed toward the Christians or non-Christians reading the passage to impart a sense of urgency for them to decide for or against being Christian, warning not to wait because God will not smile kindly on the un-decided.

    From me to you I mean it to mean that livingness in this universe is a hot blooded activity. Even the reptiles have to warm up to function. From me to you, after reading your words quite a bit, I’ve come to admire your intellect, but I think you are too comfortable and dramatize failed purpose. It is safe and non-committal. It is not a bad place and I don’t imply there is something wrong with you. I do admire your ability and tenacity and think you need to be challenged to take chances and not be lazy to use your mind’s potential. From me to you, it means that the first quality of a scientist is to have hope and confidence that he can know things and to not accept “unknowable” as a quality of existence. Respectfully, Chris
    PS: If I did not perceive you to be a person of great intellect, I would not bother to write so much and so bluntly – I would be much more social.


  • Chris Thompson  On April 23, 2011 at 9:14 PM

    PS: Take a look at my idea that there is no hard line between knowable and unknowable. Your statements on this subject hold up until one dabbles in the idea that we are theta beings experiencing a carnal existence on purpose.

    My idea is to take a look at the “Know to Mystery Scale” and get the idea of this line between knowable and unknowable to be below the “know” at the top of the scale. Just look at that for a bit and see if you can get my point of view for discussion’s sake.

    I already know your stock answer to this. Try it my way for a minute will you?


  • vinaire  On April 23, 2011 at 10:21 PM

    In this case “God” will not smile kindly no matter which way one decides. In looking, things have to emerge on their own. They can’t be rushed.

    At this point we are looking at the edge of the universe. I think that going back and filling up the blanks may help us look further. That is what I intend to do.



  • Chris Thompson  On April 24, 2011 at 1:58 PM

    You have pulled up some esoteric Scientology quotations from tapes, etc., when you want to make a point and this shows me you are well versed in Scientology. Please let me direct your attention to the Scientology definition of “computation.”

    “technically, that aberrated evaluation and postulate that one must be consistently in a certain state in order to succeed . . . , etc.,.”

    When you write, “In looking, things have to emerge on their own. They can’t be rushed.” You have stated a classic computation. There is no reason more than your consideration which holds these two statements in place.

    Again, I am writing to you and trying to show you respect by reading and writing to what you have written because my purpose is to understand and I suspect you are being a key player in my work.

    I knew that I was being harsh when I pulled out a negative adjective like “lazy” and I apologize for this. I promise I do not think of you as a lazy person. That comment was directed only at one “comfortable aspect” of your viewpoint regarding unknowable as expressed to me.

    Also, I want to direct your attention to the definition of “service facsimile.” I will state my opinion that the Unknowable can be defined as a service facsimile in the classic sense. It is a circular concept of how one is not creating a concept. You cannot ever agree that I understand you. In doing so you would acknowledge a manifestation which renders it inconsistent with the concept of non-concept. You may counter this if you want.

    Finally, Because you repeatedly discuss the importance of “looking,” I ask you to address your opinion and definition of “the looker.” Please describe this “looker” to me.

    Once again, I notice that you do not respond to the work and effort of my writing. Acknowledgement is a necessary component in a successful dialog. It is natural for me to desire acknowledgement and measure your doing so to be commensurate with your seriousness toward our dialog.


    • vinaire  On April 24, 2011 at 3:13 PM

      I don’t agree with the slant Scientology puts on the definition of computation. Everybody computes one way or another. Mathematicians compute. It is part of thinking. Please see KHTK 2: LOOKING AND THINKING. Thinking is faulty only in the absence of proper looking. So, the focus should be on looking and not on thinking.

      Also, for me, expectations of acknowledgement violate the principles of looking. Please see KHTK 1: INTRODUCTION TO LOOKING

      I believe that people should look for themselves, and not expect others to look for them. The KHTK essays are there to help you.



  • Chris Thompson  On April 27, 2011 at 2:11 AM

    Expecting an acknowledgement when conversing isn’t anything fancy, it is just good manners. Writing in effect that I am unreasonable for desiring normal 2 way communication and then referring me to one of your essays to prove your point is . . . un-endearing.

    I notice that you specifically dodge the points that I ask you to discuss. Is there a particular reason for this that you can share?


  • vinaire  On April 27, 2011 at 8:00 AM

    Good manners is also to try not to impose on the other person’s sense of freedom. To me, that is good manners. I try not to impose myself on anybody. I simply write my ideas and understanding. I don’t expect others to get something out of it. But if they do then that is a bonus for me.

    What I really want to share, I put it in my essays. When responding to comments, I simply write what comes to me. I hope that answers your questions.



  • Chris Thompson  On April 27, 2011 at 8:28 AM

    I now understand. Thank you.


%d bloggers like this: