The following propositions serve as a core foundation for the tenets of Pamalogy beginning with the proposition that Maximized Awesomeness must be real.
Proposition 1 – Why Maximized Awesomeness must be real
1. There is a total set of possibility (basic)
2. In that set is the possibility of knowing and doing. (from 1)
3. In the subset of knowing are both superlatives and all moral possibility, including its analysis, and the possibility of any and every form of knowledge, including that which has the determination of what Maximized Awesomeness would be if it were true and how to accomplish it, making Maximized Awesomeness real and actualized rather than merely possible. (from 2)
4. In the subset of possible doing is the superlative of unlimited ability if it were true. (from 2)
5. In the subset of the determination of what Maximized Awesomeness would be, the total set of all possibility derives from its fullness of moral analysis its obligation to become real since it knows how and can. (from 1-4)
C. Maximized Awesomeness is real. (from 5)
From this flows the metaphysical system I call “Pamalogy.” Pamalogy is short for Poly Astronomically Maximized Awesomeology.
Proposition 2 – Why there must be a Multiverse
1. Maximized Awesomeness is real (from Proposition 1)
2. Maximized Awesomeness is that than which nothing could be better (basic)
3. That than which nothing could be better must include all possible and impossible good things, conceived by perceivers or not, and nothing bad, according to its own determination of what would be “good” or “bad.” (basic)
4. Many things can be good, including various versions of stories or histories. (basic)
5. For every good history to be true, there must be a Multiverse, lest there be only one history rather than multiple good histories. (basic)
C. The Multiverse is real. (from 1-5)
The “Poly Astronomically” part of “Poly Astronomically Maximized Awesomeness” in “Pamalogy” comes from the idea of the Multiverse that fulfills Maximized Awesomeness. The main objection to Maximized Awesomeness, (which may be seen as “God”), is the existence of evil. So the next Proposition is the Pamalogical theodicy.
Proposition 3 – Why bad things cannot be real
1. Both the Multiverse and Maximized Awesomeness are real (from Propositions 1&2)
2. Bad things seem to be happening such as the holocaust and babies suffering from diseases, injustice etc. in the present Universe. (basic)
3. If Maximized Awesomeness is real, bad things cannot be real. (basic)
4. If bad things are real, Maximized Awesomeness cannot be real (basic)
5. “Maximized Awesomeness is true” and “Maximized Awesomeness is not true” is a logical contradiction. (basic)
C. Bad things are not real. (from 1-5)
If there is no evil, there are no evil entities. It follows that neither Universes nor the perceiving identities that traverse them are evil in any way. At best, they may appear as such.
Proposition 4 – Why the apparent evil Universe cannot be real
1. Both the Multiverse and Maximized Awesomeness are real (from Propositions 1, 2)
2. Good things seem to be happening such as forgiveness, compassion and healing etc. in the present Universe. (basic)
3. If Maximized Awesomeness is real, all good things must be real, including those things which are intrinsically related to bad things such as forgiveness. (basic)
4. Many good things such as forgiveness, which intrinsically involve bad things, such as sin, are observed in the present Universe. (basic)
5. Bad things are not real (from Proposition 3)
6. If the Universe has evil, the Universe is not wholly good and that would not be Maximized Awesomeness. (basic).
7. If the Universe is not real, but the goodness in it is real, that would be Awesome, and this would be accomplished if the goodness belonged to another wholly good Universe or Multiverse. Such a fact does not have to be readily apparent in what perceivers think is the present Universe and is not the only way conceivable that good things might exist but not bad things which are apparent. (basic)
8. (7) is not a contradiction. It solves the problem of evil in the present Universe, as might other conceivable possibilities, but if it is true that if a Universe has evil, then the Universe would be evil, but also true that a Universe that has good is good, then a distinction between the present apparent Universe and a good Universe means there is both a real and an unreal Universe that perceivers seem to experience and the Universe which appears to contain evil is not real, while the Universe which contains good is real.
C. The apparent present evil Universe is not real. (from7-8)
Proposition 4 needs to be paired down. This list of propositions is a work in progress. Thank you for your patience. Proposition 4 also comes with the mutual conclusion (C2) that the present good Universe is real (from 7-8). It says less about the good real Universe because that Universe is related to a less apparent Universe that is wholly good, concerning which it is difficult to perceive or fathom from any limited perspective of perception. The general assumption of Pamalogy is that there are many interrelated Universes comprising many Multiverses in a total Multiverse. Each Universe may have its own set of laws such as numbers of dimensions, formulas for speed of light and gravity and time and such and relationships with other Universes.
One odd feature is the concept of personhood. Whereas, Descartes concludes “I think, therefore I am” cogito ergo sum, Pamalogy doesn’t find an “I” in perception. The sense of personhood may seem apparent, but so does a world with evil. It replaces cogito ergo sum with sensus accidit (“perception happens”). It would be distinct from Berkeley’s esse est percipi, which similarly implies no particular person in perception. In the inflective language of Latin, Sensus accidit is a third person plural, implying perception is a plural. Pamalogy would accept that there is more than one perception that happens. It has already been shown that Maximized Awesomeness is real and includes all that could be good, which means every possible good perception is real. It is a most pluriform beauty.
Unlike Berkeley’s esse est percipi, sensus accidit does not suppose, however, that perception makes things real. It can, in fact, appear to perceive that which is not real. Perception simply is. That much is known about perception itself – that and how it fits together with the deductive inference established in these propositions. That is all. Oddly, if there is to be any personhood attached to perception, it finds better justification for “we” than for “I.” Pamalogy holds that personhood is a bundled network, as I will show in Proposition 6. This will follow from the law of permutation in Proposition 5.
Proposition 5 – Why Universes permutate
1. Maximized Awesomeness and the Multiverse are both real (Propositions 1-2)
2. For every good thing to happen, every possible history containing any uniquely good thing must take place whether it is real or not (Propositions 2, 4 and basic)
3. For every possible history to take place, one unique change is required for each point in time for that Universe, and multiple possibilities each with variant histories of goodness may exist for each point in time in any history for any Universe.
C. There are many possible good histories. Therefore, there are many permutations of good possibility stemming from each point in time in each Universe.
Proposition 5 leads to the permutation of the person. I refer to this as a “bundled soul.” It is a network of perception. Depending on perspective and relationship the “person” could be “we” or “they” or “you” once we get to Proposition 7 below, per Proposition 6.
Proposition 6 – Why the person must be a bundled network
1. A Universe permutates over time into many Universes to Maximize Awesomeness (Proposition 5)
2. When a new Universe arises from a shared past, the past was a unified network bundle of Universes, but its present and future are unique so that its identity is distinguished from the other branches (from 1)
3. As the Universe continues to permutate, network bundles which would identify ultimate Universe histories continue to split off. (from 1)
4. The future is not always shared by them but the past is shared up until any past permutation point. (from1)
5. A person (identity) is a perceiving entity in a Universe. (basic)
6. A person (identity) in a Universe permutates whenever the Universe they are associated with permutates. (from 2, 3, 4 & 5)
7. If perceiving entities have chronological continuity, then what we call “personhood” is really a bundled network of perceiving entities with shared pasts in the same way that unique Universes are bundled network entities with shared pasts.
C. If perceiving entities have chronological continuity, then perceiving entities are bundled networks.
When we ask the questions, “what would be better?” or “what would be best?” we are engaging in an axiological speculation. We are asking this because we can infer from the reality of Maximized Awesomeness that what would be best is true. Therefore, anything that is better than one supposition, is included in the totality of actualized truth. We might ask a question like, would it be good if we had the opportunity to meet with the other versions of ourselves after they had been unbundled and enjoyed other versions of possible Universes? There is no reason to suppose that this happening would not be something quite good. Viz. Proposition 7.
Proposition 7 – Why there must be a reconciliation of permutation for chronological entities
1. It is good that Universes permutate so that all good things are actualized (Propositions 1-5)
2. The Maximization of Awesomeness is both necessary and includes all good things. (Propositions 1-2)
3. Even better than every good history taking place, and included in the category of good things, is the sharing of goodness and good relationships between Universes, including those with permutated timelines. (from 2)
4. If it would be better and if Maximized Awesomeness is real, (3) must be true.
C. There is a reconciliation of permutation. (from 3,4)
This last proposition may be hard to envision, so I’ll provide some examples. Version A of what seems like a “me” goes into Universe A and version B into Universe B and so on. There are reconciling Universes where A and B get together and share stories so if I was in Universe A and meet B, I meet myself, so that I am meeting as “we” somehow. The sharing can take place in many ways – every good way possible. It’s a lot, so in some ways I retain “I” and in other ways “we” are sharing as a reconciled bundle with two separate histories. There are so many good things possible that there is no word in the English language to describe them. Pamalogy avoids the word “infinite” because that comes with a logical objection so it sticks with “as many as it takes for every good thing to happen.” And on top of that, there is what it includes, part of which is proper pronouns to describe what “we” are prior to permutation, after permutation, and in reconciliation and communion, or fellowship post-permutationally.
Proposition 8 – Why Pamalogy is pan-pronounal
1. There is sometimes a reconciliation of permutation for chronological entities (Proposition 7)
2. Maximized Awesomeness excludes no good possibility (Propositions 1 and 2)
3. All good types of sharing is good from every pronounal perspective. (basic)
4. Jointly sharing experiences as we, understanding not as we but as groups concerning he, she, it or they, individually and towards one such as you, or addressing pluralities, are examples for both communication of those experiences or relationships and communion, which are all potentially good (from 4)
C. Perceiving entities are pan-pronounal. (from 3 &4)
Pamalogy also employs arguments that address the types of identity problems discussed by John Locke and Derek Parfit. I will enumerate a few more in the next few propositions, starting with a perplexing problem for the standard view of empirical observation, wherein perception is thought to result merely from the possibility that time proceeding and nature evolving, should result in bioforms with brains that would enjoy consciousness as “you” or “me” coincidentally at the point in time now. The assumption is that since this is what is observed that the probability of this is 100%. However, if there are other time and consciousness paradigms that would explain how a lifespan or moment of consciousness would occur simultaneously with any point in time “now,” that assumption must be reconsidered in the light of scenarios or explanations that would generally be far more, even infinitely more probable – in short, possible explanations of how we beat infinite odds.
Proposition 9 – Solving the Unlikelihood of Perception Now
1. If there is only one Universe, and time proceeds uniformly, and if there is to be only one perceiving me in all of time, then the odds of the one perceiving me occurring at any point in time, “now” are equal to the relationship between the length of my lifespan and the length of time itself. (basic)
2. If the future is infinite, no matter how long the past may be, in such a single Universe, the length of that ratio comes to 1:infinity. (basic)
3. I may either look at this in hindsight as 100% chance that the point in time “now” should land at some point during my lifespan, or from the perspective of the odds prior to such a concurrence or afterwards as some finite to infinite chance, which is effectively close to the limit to 0% odds. (basic)
4. If I always perceive, then the odds my life would coincide with any point in time “now” change to infinity:infinity, which is 100%. (basic)
5. If time is dependent on my perception, then the odds of any point in time coinciding with any moment in my lifespan change to lifespanlength:lifespanlength, which is 100%. (basic)
6. If time is circumvented by some force or phenomenon, so that the entirety of the past is removed on my behalf or otherwise stands as no obstacle to my existence, so that my perception would begin as it appears when I was born and this happened recently, within the past few decades, then perhaps things are as they appear. (basic)
7. (4), (5) and (6) solve (1), (2) and (3), while (3) is only possible in a most unlikely hindsight. (basic, 1-3, 4-6)
C. By abduction, time either (a) shrinks to perception, (b) perception stretches to time, or (c) time is circumvented on behalf of perception somehow, or some combination of (a), (b) or (c), while the least likely proposition (d) is that there is a single Universe with a uniformly proceeding timeline upon which my lifespan has freakishly coincided with its current point in time, as empirical observation might suggest to anyone who hadn’t considered the more likely alternatives to the cause of perception, (a), (b) or (c). (from 7)
Proposition 9 shows that the basic assumption of empirical science regarding the Universe and our consciousness is incorrect. Proposition 9 fits in coherently with Propositions 1-8, where (1) Maximized Awesomeness is real, (2) there must be a Multiverse, (3) bad things cannot be real, (4) the apparent evil Universe cannot be real, (5) Universes permutate, (6) where chronological entities are real, personal identity is bundled network identity, (7) such chronological entities enjoy reconciliation, (8) perception is pan-pronounal, and finally (9). Perception now is only likely through time shrinking, to the length of perception, perception expanding to the length of time, perception moving to i’s points in time, or some combination of these.
Cohesively, all real things being caused by the Maximization of Awesomeness, perception being such a thing, the purpose of perception is the Maximization of Awesomeness. This could have been a second conclusion in Proposition 7 but can also be demonstrated as follows:
Proposition 10 – How to Know that the Purpose of Perception is the Maximization of Awesomeness
1. Maximized Awesomeness is real (Proposition 1)
2. All that is real is caused by Maximized Awesomeness directly or indirectly. (from 1)
3. All perception is part of reality. (basic)
4. All perception is caused by Maximized Awesomeness directly or indirectly. (from 2,3)
5. The purpose of Maximized Awesomeness being real is the Maximization of Awesomeness (from 1)
6. Maximized Awesomeness knows all things and shares responsibility for all things that are real so that Maximized Awesomeness Itself might be actualized, including the reality of perception, for the purpose of the Maximization of Awesomeness. (from 1, 4, 5)
C. The purpose of perception is the Maximization of Awesomeness.
Biological and neurological science associates consciousness, hence perception, with the brain in living organisms. In Proposition 6, I established that a chronological identity was a bundled network. This solves Derek Parfit’s cloning problem, by assuming that the Universe does continually permutate into alternate worlds in which clones exist to actualize the Maximization of Awesomeness, but maintains previous identifiers as network bundles both for Universes and for perceivers, rather than seeing duplicates as newborn identities as old formerly combined identities die.
An evolutionary world with a limited space-time past, and or future, corresponds with a vast number of Universes and corresponding identities, where perception exists in any moment in any Universe.
Momentary perception would be all that could be proven with certainty, (for reasons similar to why this was all Descartes could say he knew), if it were not for the purpose of Maximized Awesomeness, which establishes it, as shown. Rather, because perception has this uncovered purpose, many things can be inferred, as we have already seen from this introductory inventory, and there are many other logical propositions besides these that could be added but must be omitted for the sake of brevity. One inference leading to another will begin to build up a Pamalogical system of ethics foundationally, in fact. In this sense and for this reason, such deductive logic in a a foundational context, even a very rigid neo-Cartesian one, is very useful for Pamalogy. By “useful” what is meant is that the foundational components of the metaphysical system are obtained by these many deductive inferences.
It would be nothing novel for a metaphysical system to lead to moral reasoning through teleological arguments, of course, or for some sort of moral system to be drawn therefrom.
A chronological connection between moments of perception exists to the extent that such connections serve the purpose of the Maximization of Awesomeness. That any chronological continuity exists between perception states is established axiologically. Time is useful for serving goodness in the grand scheme of the maximization of Awesomeness. The opposite is also true. Moments can also be awesome in and of themselves, with or without chronologies. That which is good, is best if all good things always happen. Thus, all truly good possible moments are continuously repeated, whether they involve permutating chronologies or not. Maximized Awesomeness never lacks them in any good moment or chronology. The basis is straightforward:
Proposition 11: – How to Know that All Good Possible Things Always Take Place
1. Maximized Awesomeness is that which lacks no possible good thing and than which there could be nothing better. (from Proposition 1)
2. Therefore, Maximized Awesomeness never lacks any good thing. It is a constant. (from 1)
C. All good possible things always take place.
Saying that all good things always take place has its opposite, the total absence of any bad thing ever happening on account of the reality of Maximized Awesomeness, which was axiologically deduced in Propositions 3 and 4, where it was determined that the apparent Universe is not real and that the goodness that is apparent in it is real. If we know that the purpose of perception is the maximization of Awesomeness, it is not necessary to know how this is accomplished, (for instance, through dreams, illusions, simulations, or through an atemporal selectivity of perception, some combination of these things and/or other means, etc.), in order to determine the reasons why it is accomplished, and therefore that it is accomplished. But if the purpose of any perception is for the maximization of awesomeness by a perceiver or a bundle of perceivers, yet these see that they are not always willing to do what is good, or seem to have the capacity to do what is good, then we see that whether the Maximization is deterministic, or not, there is a moral imperative inherent in perception’s purpose – that perceivers, like Maximized Awesomeness Itself, should participate willfully. The problem of determinism can be solved by asking whether free will would be a good thing that would be part of Maximized Awesomeness. The answer is yes. Free will would be a good thing. In fact, every possible expression of free will would be even better than some free will. Similarly, Maximized Awesomeness is Itself a determining Entity, which is to say it has a will. So who gets their way? Proposition 12 deals with free will like this:
Proposition 12 – Why there is every good expression both of free will and of determinism
1. The will to do that which is good may be (a) self-determined, and/or it may be (b) determined by another, including the force of circumstance, and/ or it may be (c) mutually determined, such that the collective permission or will of two or more entities is granted.
2. All of that which is good in any three of these is included in the Maximization of Awesomeness since Maximized Awesomeness is real and is that than which there could be nothing better. (from Proposition 1)
3. Nothing good that is self-determined is not a good that is not included in Maximized Awesomeness, which is one of the entities. Therefore, (a) is included in (c).
4. Nothing good in that which is determined by any entity, including the force of circumstance, is not a good that is not included in Maximized Awesomeness, which is one of the entities. Therefore, (b) is included in (c).
C. If free will would be a good thing, it would be included in Maximized Awesomeness, whether some things are forced by circumstance or not, apart from such things as a mutual determination, such that the collective permission or will of any entity or entities and Maximized Awesomeness are granted. (from 3, 4)
Proposition 12 shows a synergistic monergism, which might be called “monosynergism.” Many have wondered how a Universe such as heaven can be wholly good, or even unsurpassable, if many entities have free will, wherein free will entails the ability to do that which is evil. Further, it is presumed that God has either predetermined sin, or been irresponsible in failing to prevent it, foreseeing all things, and thus stands culpable for evil, leading to atheistic suppositions. Propositions 3 and 4, showed that evil does not actually exist and neither does an apparent Universe containing such evil exist. Proposition 13 handles the problem inherent in free will – that it can choose to do or be evil.
Proposition 13 – Why Agents with Free Will Choose Only that which is Good.
1. There is no such thing as that which is bad or a Universe that is bad because it contains that which is bad (from Propositions 3 and 4)
2. Whether determined by circumstance and/or by free will and/or by the will of Maximized Awesomeness, that which is good is constant in reality as Maximized Awesomeness. (from Propositions 11 and 12)
3. The choice to do that which is good is thus part of one or more wholly good Universes and is real, while the choice not to do good belongs to unreal Universes only. (from 1)
4. Free will is not forced by determination. (basic definition)
5. The decision to do or be bad could only occur in an unreal Universe by an unreal entity and does not actually occur. (from 1)
6. Any decision that is good, is a decision included in the decision of Maximized Awesomeness, so that it is monosynergistic. (from Proposition 12)
C. What remains for wholly good Universes is a synergistic choice between entities, including Maximized Awesomeness, to do and be only that which is good. (from 5 and 6)
So far we have seen that a perceiving entity can have free will synergistically with Maximized Awesomeness. From this we can see better how the purpose of or call to Maximized Awesomeness works together for bundled networks of perceivers. That which is not good is merely logical possibility that is never actualized. That which is good, is somehow pre-existent in Maximized Awesomeness as that which is real because it would have been good in a certain condition, and Maximized Awesomeness does not ever lack anything good. Knowing our purpose means recognizing the call to Maximize Awesomeness given any possibility. This is true for every node in any network of perceivers. Bad choices are possible but not chosen by any real perceivers in the bundle.
This presents a challenge to networks of perceivers as a whole as they traverse possibilities. Suppose that there is a mixed logical possibility in path X that goes g,g,b,g,g, where “g’ is a good choice and “b” is a bad choice. We see here that a bad choice precedes two good choices, which might not have been possibilities if the condition created by the bad choice did not first occur. The bad choice is not real but the good choices are real, but how do you get to the good choices without passing through the bad choice? The network bundle, wherever it acts temporally, skips over the bad choice by hopping over it or bypassing it somehow and entering into the next good possibility to meet another challenge with an awesome choice. It’s important to note that bypassing a bad choice this way would still leave the perceiver(s) with the notion that they had done something bad, since it would be part of the logical possibility that they thought had just been actualized. This presents a new challenge for awesomeness to be realized under a new circumstance. The result is that the network has a memory of their own sin and of evil that is not real. It was never a realized possibility. Unless they are a Pamalogist, they just don’t know this. A new Universe presents them with a new circumstance that offers a new possibility for awesomeness instead.
Proposition 14 – How Networks of Perceivers Bypass Bad Possibilities
1. Unreal Universes and unreal perceivers are logical possibilities. (basic)
2. Unactualized logical possibilities do not exist except as potential. (basic)
3. Realized possibilities may be connected to other realized possibilities in reality. (basic)
4. Logical possibilities exist alongside realized possibilities in time because the totality of logical possibility is a constant. (basic)
5. The total set of good possibilities stemming from any circumstance will be realized. (from Propositions 1, 2, 5, 10, and 12)
6. Nothing in the total set of bad possibilities stemming from any circumstance will be realized. (from Propositions 3 and 4)
7. I f they are temporal entities, networks of perceivers in permutating Universes may also permutate as they are unbundled. (from Propositions 5 and 6)
C. Bad possibilities are logical possibilities that are bypassed by networks of perceivers in permutating Universes. (from 6 and 7) But all good possibilities stemming from any situation will not be bypassed by networks of perceivers in permutating Universes. (from 5 and 7)
Proposition 14 compresses permutations, so that no time, space, energy or substance is given to any bad logical possibility for existence, leaving every good possibility actualized. The memory and perception of evil may still exist. In the case where a network may think it has sinned, one might think this was a deception. The deception is, however, not what the network is. The deception is just another circumstance the network can choose good in relation to, if it were more than mere logical possibility. And it is more than logical possibility whenever it makes good choices and good things happen in it.
It has been demonstrated so far that logical possibility is subordinate to Maximized Awesomeness. The principle of subordination also applies to the superlative qualities of Maximized Awesomeness as a whole. This is to say that Omniscience and Omnipotence are both subordinate to All Goodness [Omni-Benevolence]. We already observed this when considering free will. One possesses the power to do evil but does not choose to do that evil. The result is meekness, and “Maximized Meekness.” The Omnipotence of Maximized Awesomeness is not diminished by the deliberate choice or intention of the Omni-Benevolence not to actualize evil in the slightest, but instead, to let the conditions evil be circumstances over which Omni-benevolence would overcome with every variety of good and awesome response. To put this in more traditional words, it is untrue to say that God is not Omnipotent because He can do no evil or that God is not Omniscient because He can know no error. Rather, the superlatives of Omniscience and Omnibenevolence are simply subordinate to Maximized Awesomeness. This we establish with Proposition 15.
Proposition 15 – That Omniscience and Omnipotence are Subordinate to Omni-Benevolence.
1. All that could be good belongs to Maximized Awesomeness, which is Omni-benevolence. (basic)
2. Maximized Awesomeness excludes anything bad. (basic)
3. It would be bad if the power to do that which was bad was exercised. (basic)
4. It would be impossible to know that which is untrue. (basic)
5. Maximized Awesomeness is real. (from Proposition 1)
6. If Maximized Awesomeness is real, then Omniscience and Omnipotence are subordinate to Omni-benevolence. (from 1-4)
C. Omniscience and Omnipotence are subordinate to Omni-benevolence. (from 5, 6)
Proposition 15 brings us to other considerations of Pamalogical Theology. We already touched on the pan-chronicity of Maximized Awesomeness in Proposition 11. The concept that God cannot change is known as “Divine Immutability.” Outside of Pamalogy, this term is often taken with lower standards, as if some attribute of God, such as his knowledge and purpose might not change over time. Lower standards of immutability accommodate anthropomorphic theology, allowing that God reacts, gets angry, relents and takes action. Divine action is hard for many people to reconcile with the concept of Divine immutability, so they lower the standard of immutability. Pamalogy retains the highest standard of Divine Immutability. This is further established in Proposition 16, wherein the Doing and Being of God are shown to be the same.
Proposition 16 – That the Doing and Being of Maximized Awesomeness are One.
1. Maximized Awesomeness is that than which there can be nothing greater. (basic)
2. If the actions of that than which there can be nothing greater add to the being of that than which there can be nothing greater, then the actions contain some matter of greatness that the being of that than which nothing can be greater does not possess. (basic)
3. If the being of that than which there can be nothing greater adds to the doing of that than which there can be nothing greater, then the being contains some matter of greatness that the doing of that than which nothing can be greater does not possess. (basic)
4. If the being and the doing of Maximized Awesomeness are not one and the same, then neither the doing nor the being of Maximized Awesomeness are Maximized Awesomeness. (from 2,3)
C. The Doing and the Being of Maximized Awesomeness are One and the same. (from 4,1)
There would be no higher standard of Divine Immutability than Proposition 16. It is hard for many people to understand how God can interact with mankind historically this way since they are accustomed to view relationships as interactive. Pamalogy sees all things arising from pure possibility through the will of Maximized Awesomeness as the best logical possibility having anticipated all that is possible. The total set of pure possibility is timeless. It is a constant. Any point in time is a mere possibility that is either actualized or not, depending on whether there would be anything good in it. It does not wait through history for points in time. It has the power to actualize all points of time that would be good, and does, doing so constantly, as we saw in Proposition 11. It is in this constant reliving of each moment that being and doing are reconciled. We can do away with the notion that God is up in heaven with the same time frame we have. It is rather more like a Divine Alpha and Omega who two thousand years after the death of Abraham, might say something like “before Abraham, I Am.”
The idea that someone like Jesus might be God is difficult to conceive of for many reasons, partly due to the consideration of Scriptural interpretation and varying traditions and partly because of the conceptual paradox of any incarnation, especially in monotheism. Pamalogy makes no assertions as to whether Jesus is incarnate deity because it is a metaphysical system that is based on logical foundations rather than on any perceived authority from Scripture or tradition. The idea that God could become man, however, is not excluded by logic. But that said, the same applies to God becoming anything, or even everything, to the extent that anything has anything that is good. This leads to the possibility of pantheism rather than a singular incarnation. Here the idea would be more like that of the statement of James, that “every good and perfect gift comes down from the Father of Lights, in whom there is no variation or shifting shadow.” In Christianity, such gifts are normally equated with the work of the Holy Spirit. In Pamalogy, there are two types of goodness – that which encompasses all goodness, or Maximized Awesomeness, and that which includes some limited manner of goodness. The latter is included in Maximized Awesomeness and cannot be unknown to it. There is a relational connection between that which is less than Maximized Awesomeness and Maximized Awesomeness Itself. However, as Truth, because of Omniscience, Maximized Awesomeness does become less than what It is. Why this must be so is explained in Proposition 17, which also shows why condescension is not pantheistic, making a distinction between the being of portions of goodness and the relationship of portions of goodness with the Totality of Goodness, which is Omni-Benevolence, or Maximized Awesomeness.
Proposition 17 – That Omniscience requires Condescension of Being and Doing.
1. To be Omniscient is to be aware of all things in a state of being in relation to what is known or can be known such that the Truth is fully known, including Itself and all that is less than what it is. (basic)
2. If much that is good exists or takes place at any time, then what can be known by Omniscience includes all of that which is good at those places and times. (basic)
3. The Being and the Doing of Maximized Awesomeness, which is Omniscient, are the same and Maximized Awesomeness is real. (From Propositions 1 and 16)
4. Whether the knowing of Maximized Awesomeness is being that which is good in that which is known, or a relationship to that which is good and that which is known, the Being and Doing of Maximized Awesomeness are the same. (from 1 and 3)
5. The knowledge of Maximized Awesomeness is Being as well as Doing, such that It fully knows various portions of Itself and every action that it Does, including all of that which is good at any place or time. (from 2, 4)
6. Maximized Awesomeness must relationally be that which it knows. (from 4, 5)
7. Maximized Awesomeness must always be what It is. (basic)
8. To know all things, Omniscience must Be less than Itself to know that which is less than Itself. (from 6, 7)
C. Both the Being and Doing of Maximized Awesomeness are less than what they are in knowing all things. Such ontological unity exists in relationship to the fullness of Maximized Awesomeness as Maximized Awesomeness.
To be clear, in the type of pantheism that Pamalogy is likely to be confused with from Proposition 17, all things are considered God. What Proposition 17 is suggesting, however, is that God’s being is in all that is relationally, in the condescension of divine Being and Doing. The unitive principle between ontology and the grace of Divine Doing or Action establishes that wherever anything good is or happens, God is that goodness happening. This happens throughout reality, since only that which is good is real. Saying so does not diminish the Divine Totality of Maximized Awesomeness by creating a pantheon in the material or spiritual world. It dignifies that which is less than the Totality of Awesomeness through unity with the totality in being fully known, even ontologically.
To put it in more familiar terms – the descending unity of the Holy Spirit, (the closest paradigm to what this logic indicates), does not mean that that which is dignified by such a phenomenon is a replacement of God that should be worshiped instead of or in addition to God. Neither is any network of perceivers blessed by such goodness to be construed as a divine replacement despite the relational unity it possesses with the essence of Maximized Awesomeness as a sharer in It’s goodness. The system is not incompatible with orthodox Christianity. The next two propositions are also quite compatible with historical Christian orthodoxy, though without Scripture or tradition as a central authority any logical system would be dismissed by many Christians.
Proposition 18 – That Maximized Awesomeness is Triune in Being and Doing.
1. Action implies three relationships: that which does, the doing of that which it does, and that which is done. (basic)
2. Some actions are reflexive. A reflexive action happens when that which does, does what it does for or to itself. There are still three relationships in a reflexive action. (basic)
3. The Doing of Maximized Awesomeness is the same as the Being of Maximized Awesomeness. (from Proposition 16)
4. In Maximized Awesomeness, the Doer is the Doing which is Done, which is to say that Maximized Awesomeness Is of Itself, Doing what it Is – Being exactly what It Is, not just Doing, but Begetting Itself in the Action of Being in the three relationships of Action pertaining to Itself.
C. Maximized Awesomeness is Triune in Being and Doing. (from 4)
Proposition 18 thus affirms an eternal Trinity – the Begetter, the Begetting and the Begotten – the Uncreated Self-Sustaining Eternal I Am. The question remains whether it will also affirm the incarnation of the only Begotten as the same I Am. The historical Trinity is held in Christian orthodoxy to be one with the eternal Trinity paradoxically. Proposition 19 prepares for the basis in of such a proposition by dealing with the issue of Monothelitism in a general way. It shows that two wills can be operative when the will of that which is less than Maximized Awesomeness (God) is shared with the will of Maximized Awesomeness. This opens a door to but does not speculate further about the nature or dual nature of Jesus.
Proposition 19 – That the Condescension of Maximized Awesomeness Sometimes Involves Two Wills in Cooperation
1. A good action can be willfully intended or determined by another willful agent or circumstance. (basic)
2. Nothing Maximized Awesomeness Does is determined by anything other than Maximized Awesomeness Itself willfully and this includes all good action (from Proposition 1).
3. That which is less than Maximized Awesomeness sometimes makes good choices of its own free will as always does Maximized Awesomeness (from Proposition 13).
4. All of the good actions of that which is less than Maximized Awesomeness are included in the actions of Maximized Awesomeness. (from 2)
C. Maximized Awesomeness always has free will in every action. Both Maximized Awesomeness and that which is less than Maximized Awesomeness have free will in some actions. (from 3,4)
A more exhaustive assessment of Christian theological views and of the other major religions based on this type of foundational logic is forthcoming. The goal here is to provide an opening sketch of some of the major propositions of Pamalogy. With that in mind, it would be nice to see how Pamalogy would view the angels and powers higher than mankind. Proposition 20 offers some basics.
Proposition 20 – That Humans are of a Low Order of Intelligence, Ability and Capacity for Goodness and Understanding
1. Intelligence and ability, understanding and kindness are examples of good traits and skills to have and there are many more good qualities one might possess. (basic)
2. Not all are equal in their abilities and inclinations. (basic)
3. There are as many good types of beings, with as much variety of skills, abilities and traits, as it takes and as many Universes as it takes for every good possibility of the use of such to take place because Maximized Awesomeness is real. (from Propositions 1 and 2)
4. The range of traits and skills greater than what humans possess increases continually up to the point of Omni-Benevolence in certain magnificent entities and decreases continually to the point of almost no goodness in humans or other entities whose existence is just barely worthy of actualization. (from Propositions 1 and 2).
5. Humans contribute little goodness to the Universes in comparison to Maximized Awesomeness and to higher beings. (from 3,4)
C. Humans are of a relatively low order of intelligence and ability and have a capacity for goodness which is fractional and hardly measurable compared to a plethora of higher beings in the Multiverse. (from 5)
With man seen not quite so high up the hierarchy of beings, it stands to reason that his assumptions about knowledge and belief should be assessed for what they really are, as well. The next two propositions touch on epistemological concepts. This will serve as a launching point for numerous axiological considerations, that would provide a framework for a philosophy of awesomeness that is practical for humans in the world they perceive.
Proposition 21 – That Empirical Knowledge is Limited with Respect to Justified Belief
1. Most humans believe in a world of ideas and in an “outside world.’ That is, there are thoughts that include deductive inference and mathematics and there are also thoughts about things perceived, such as objects or actions in the world. The latter is called “empirical knowledge.” (Definition)
2. If something that any entity thinks is actually untrue, it would be better termed “belief” than “knowledge,” no matter how well justified. (basic)
3. It is sometimes speculated that one might be dreaming when perceiving something, hallucinating, receiving sensory perception as a brain in a vat, or living as a cyber being in a simulated reality of some intelligent design. There are many alternative explanations for perception to the notion of an “outside world.” (basic)
4. The compression of reality so that no evil is actualized in any world is an example of how reality is often not what it seems. (from Propositions, 4, 13 and 14)
5. If any good can come from such unperceived circumstances, these are not merely possibilities in the spectrum of Maximized Awesomeness, but inevitabilities. (From Proposition 2)
6. Since sometimes these underlying possibilities may be true, and since this certainly is often the case with respect to compressed reality, almost nothing perceived is true. 100% certainty exists only for mathematical and logical propositions. (from 1,5)
C. So called, “empirical knowledge” is Limited with Respect to Justified Belief. Among humans, calling anything regarding the outside world “knowledge” is likely to be inaccurate. (from 2,6)
Proposition 21 has shown an amplified skepticism by challenging the underlying framework of reality with a new concept of what the outside world actually is. The empiricist who fails to consider the compressed reality Pamalogists propose is true, will continue believing their memories of bad things are real, when no such bad things have actually taken place. Whereas, most skeptical theories are quite exotic and far-fetched, Pamalogy, as we have seen, is built entirely on foundational logic. It does not say the framework of reality might not be what it seems. It says that the framework of reality is not what it seems. While we are on the subject of epistemology, Proposition 22, then turns to a practical point about the use of the word “knowledge.”
Proposition 22 – that the Word “Knowledge” Changes Meaning Depending on Context
1. When underlying realities such as a person dreaming and being unable to distinguish that dream from reality are true, such alternative underlying frameworks of perception do not take place unless something good comes of such a fact. If something good happens, then it becomes reality in some Universe. (from Proposition 5)
2. The fact that something must be true in some Universe does not mean that something is true in the Universe in question. (basic)
3. It is not always possible to know what underlying general framework exists for perception, but accurate knowledge is rarely the case among humans anyway. Humans do not normally know the positions of all the sub-atomic particles, their velocities or trajectories and the various forces involved in what they perceive. On a quantum level, by the best standards of empirical observation, Heidinger’s uncertainty principle applies. (from 1,2 and basic)
4. Therefore, 100% certainty as a standard for knowledge, does not exist within human capacity. (from 3)
5. Many terms in human languages have more than one meaning. The meaning of words and phrases sometimes change, as well. The word “knowledge” is one such term. (observed)
6. With a Pamalogist, it is better to speak of perceptual observation as perceptual observation rather than as “knowledge,” reserving the term “knowledge” for that which has absolute certainty concerning some point. Points of math and logic qualify and various relations of ideas. That perception happens qualifies because perception is an idea. (basic)
7. Pamalogists are not the only ones for whom the word “knowledge” has a very high standard. For others, however, one might say they saw, heard, smelled or otherwise observed or perceived something so they know it. (observed)
C. The word “knowledge” changes depending on context. (from 5-7)
Proposition 22 advises a contextualist approach to epistemology for the sake of clear communication. Pamalogy is not opposed to the use of empirical belief. It just sees Truth as that whole body of Knowledge with a capital “K” that belongs to Maximized Awesomeness. To use the word in another way is fine so long as we are not uncertain about what way we mean it as we talk or write. Context matters. And good communication is worthwhile. This leads us to some practical questions about what is good, and how proper attitudes toward perception are also good. The goal is to create stepping stones to a practical Pamalogy once we’ve established a metaphysical and epistemologically sound framework. Proposition 23 is a transitional to that end.
Proposition 23 – Concerning Axiology within a False Framework
1. Many assumptions are often made and it is often a good thing that they are, even when an underlying framework of perception is questionable or false. (observed)
2. One may suppose one knows something but if they have a false memory or are in a dream they do not have knowledge; they merely have perception. When they make a good decision or take an action that is good based on such underlying assumptions, the opportunity for awesomeness to be actualized is seized for that condition, even while dreaming or otherwise perceiving falsely. (basic)
3. To seize an opportunity for awesomeness is the purpose of life. (from Proposition 10)
4. Either a network is aware or unaware, and usually unaware of underlying realities. (basic and rom Proposition 20)
5. If misperception would cause harm or diminish awesomeness, then it is a matter of responsibility to seek more accurate perception according to its likelihood before making a moral decision. (axiological axiom)
6. A Pamalogist is likely to be more aware than others of underlying realities and some facets of the illusion of memory pertaining to the reason for the Multiverse. This may change a condition of understanding affecting axiological opportunity but Pamalogical axiology itself is unchanged. (axiological axiom)
7. The more such false frameworks provide opportunity, the greater the opportunity for good decisions to be made and good things to happen. (from Propositions 2 and 12)
C. Axiological responsibility exists within false frameworks and serves to maximize awesomeness. (from 7)
Proposition 23 is closely related to Proposition 24, which focuses on nipping a certain problem in the bud. Namely if Pamalogy teaches us that the Universe is unreal and that evil does not exist, why bother to do anything good? It’s one thing to be fooled by a framework of reality, as in Proposition 23. It is another to know you are in such an alternative framework. How should you respond? Proposition 24 gives a simple answer.
Proposition 24 – Why the Opportunity for Awesomeness is to be Seized even in Unreal Universes.
1. A network of perceivers might suppose that since the Universe they perceive is not real, that there should be no reason to seize any opportunity to maximize any awesomeness in it, especially since bad things are not real. (from Proposition 3)
2. But they are both in a real and in an unreal Universe. (from Propositions 1, 4)
3. It is good to choose goodness anywhere and in any framework of reality, whether real or unreal. (basic)
C. Each network of perceivers has the opportunity and the axiological responsibility to seize the opportunity to do awesome things in both the real and unreal Universes they are in.