Pandeism Kickstarter, Bernardo invited as one of the writers

S

Sciborg_S_Patel

#1
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/793064972/pandeism-an-anthology

A diverse collection of articles being completed by authors from all over the world on the resurging theological theory of Pandeism.

"Pandeism: An Anthology is a collection of articles by more than a dozen authors, from all over the world, presenting diverse viewpoints on the theological theory of Pandeism. This Kickstarter is not simply funding a book and a writing competition, but bringing about awareness that spirituality can be more than a binary option. We need your help to show that there's more than just the endless argument between Atheism and Theism. Even if you disagree with the proposition we discuss, you can help others to learn about the range of options which do exist. We would prefer 2,450 aware supporters pledging a dollar apiece than a dozen supporters carrying the whole load, but we recognize that this is not typical or likely. We are extremely appreciative of those who do more -- most especially those who use this Kickstarter as a venue to get the book itself.

Our Book:

This theory seeks to reconcile aspects of Pantheism and Deism, proposing as a logical possibility that we are all part of a Creator which became our Universe to experience existence through our lives. This theory is proposed to be a more elegant and parsimonious model than theistic faiths, with implications argued to be more conducive to the promotion of a framework of peace.

This anthology is the first of its kind -- though Pandeism has been identified in philosophies going back thousands of years, was first identified as a formal theological category over 150 years ago, and has been touched on by dozens of writers, it has not itself been the subject of a book dedicated to examining it for over a hundred years. It is important to note that though all of these articles are in some way or another about Pandeism, they are not all advocating of the theory -- indeed, we as compilers as well as writers have taken the unusual step of intently soliciting and receiving commitments from Atheist and Theist authors offering their critical views on Pandeism.

Authors who have committed articles to this book include an outstanding group of contributors to a variety of areas of philosophical thought:
Michael Arnheim (barrister and Deist, United Kingdom)
Robert G. Brown (physicist and philosopher, United States)
Dan Dana (Atheist writer, United States)
Alan Dawe (author of the award-winning "The God Franchise," New Zealand)
Orlando Alcántara Fernández (Christian poet, Dominican Republic)
Ismaili Gnosis (Muslim Neoplatonist philosopher)
Phillip Alexander Jones (Pandeist transhumanist, United Kingdom)
Bernardo Kastrup (computer scientist and philosopher of consciousness, Netherlands)
William C. Lane (lawyer and philosopher, United States)
Knujon Mapson (Pandeist philosopher, United States)
Poffo Ortiz (Biopantheist author and artist, United States)
Anthony Peake (Author and lecturer on consciousness, United Kingdom)
Amy Perry (transcendental poet, United States)
Sushma Sahajpal (Hindu interfaith educator, United Kingdom)
Julian West (historian of mythology, United States)

Though we consider this to be a quite thorough and compelling collection, we remain open to outstanding submissions from other excellent authors."
 
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

#4
pretty cool project, but i'm not sure what differentiates pandeism with panentheism
It seems to me Panentheism would have God looking down while also being part of creation.

Or I suppose it could be like Plotinus said, that the One (like Brahman for Hinduism) isn't a god that you worship, and the gods are akin to us in that they're derived/descended from the one...hopefully this means they're more friendly toward each other (and us) than scriptures suggest?



p.s. Honesty I just wanted to post this again.
 
S

Sciborg_S_Patel

#5
I still can't figure out who that purple dude in the middle is. The mask on the left and the eye-ball cloud also elude me.
 
#6
Hello!! I just wanted to confirm, not only that Bernardo has been invited to write, but that he has submitted his article, and it is fantastic -- will be one of the best in the book.
And that the Kickstarter is moving along beautifully as well.

And to answer the distinction posed above of the difference between Pandeism and Panentheism, in Pandeism there is no part of our Creator which is separate from our Universe, so long as our Universe exists. First the Creator exists; and then in becoming our Universe, it wholly invests itself so that only our Universe exists; and then, when our Universe is done doing whatever it does, it possible returns to being the Creator (enriched by the knowledge of having existed as our Universe and everything in it).
 
#7
And to answer the distinction posed above of the difference between Pandeism and Panentheism, in Pandeism there is no part of our Creator which is separate from our Universe, so long as our Universe exists. First the Creator exists; and then in becoming our Universe, it wholly invests itself so that only our Universe exists; and then, when our Universe is done doing whatever it does, it possible returns to being the Creator (enriched by the knowledge of having existed as our Universe and everything in it).
Does pandeism mean that we made out of God? That, in a sense, we are God?
 
#8
Does pandeism mean that we made out of God? That, in a sense, we are God?
In a sense, yes -- but in much the same sense, perhaps, that your individual cells are you.
What are we, really? Cells, made of molecules, made of atoms, made of bits of energy (and mostly empty space). And our best models suggest those bits of energy are just infinitesimally tiny loops of twisted up timespace itself, vibrating at just the right frequency.
 
#9
In a sense, yes -- but in much the same sense, perhaps, that your individual cells are you.
What are we, really? Cells, made of molecules, made of atoms, made of bits of energy (and mostly empty space). And our best models suggest those bits of energy are just infinitesimally tiny loops of twisted up timespace itself, vibrating at just the right frequency.
yes, we are made of cells. But is pandeism saying that these cells are god or gods?
 
#10
And to answer the distinction posed above of the difference between Pandeism and Panentheism, in Pandeism there is no part of our Creator which is separate from our Universe, so long as our Universe exists. First the Creator exists; and then in becoming our Universe, it wholly invests itself so that only our Universe exists; and then, when our Universe is done doing whatever it does, it possible returns to being the Creator (enriched by the knowledge of having existed as our Universe and everything in it).
Is this just another "oneness" fraud, or does your theory entail personal survival after death? I will not support any book that advocates "merging with the whole" or submitting or blending one's individuality etc.
 
#11
yes, we are made of cells. But is pandeism saying that these cells are god or gods?
Pandeism is proposing that we are all essentially fragments. We are not "gods" -- and even all humans collectively are but a tiny fraction of our Universe. But our experiences do provide a unique view of it, which any entity existing through us would, rationally, obtain experiential value from.
 
#12
Pandeism is proposing that we are all essentially fragments. We are not "gods" -- and even all humans collectively are but a tiny fraction of our Universe. But our experiences do provide a unique view of it, which any entity existing through us would, rationally, obtain experiential value from.
But you say that the 'Creator becomes our universe'. Does that mean anything (or nothing?) for the way the universe does things?
 
#13
Is this just another "oneness" fraud, or does your theory entail personal survival after death? I will not support any book that advocates "merging with the whole" or submitting or blending one's individuality etc.
Pandeism is a metatheory, like "Deism" or "Theism" -- there is no uniform pandeistic view of what happens after we die. I have myself put forth in other venues a logical argument that there is indeed personal survival after death, because it would be useful for our Creator to continue having the benefit of experiencing our continuing individual perspectives. I don't consider that at all incompatible with a return to "oneness" in a container sense. In fact, if Pandeism is correct, we're all already "one" in the sense of being different expressions of the same underlying force sustaining our Universe.
But in the contours of this book, I note that our article on consciousness and the afterlife experience is being written by Anthony Peake. He does firmly support "life after death" as a model, but I don't know what specifically his piece will propose.
 
#14
Pandeism is a metatheory, like "Deism" or "Theism" -- there is no uniform pandeistic view of what happens after we die. I have myself put forth in other venues a logical argument that there is indeed personal survival after death, because it would be useful for our Creator to continue having the benefit of experiencing our continuing individual perspectives. I don't consider that at all incompatible with a return to "oneness" in a container sense. In fact, if Pandeism is correct, we're all already "one" in the sense of being different expressions of the same underlying force sustaining our Universe.
But in the contours of this book, I note that our article on consciousness and the afterlife experience is being written by Anthony Peake. He does firmly support "life after death" as a model, but I don't know what specifically his piece will propose.
I am still trying to work out if pandeism has any specific consequences for the universe and us now! From what you say here, perhaps not. I ask, for example, does the 'underlying force sustaining our Universe' have any consequences for life and consciousness? Or is every pandeist free to make up their idealist, materialist, or humanist version, with or without life after death. In fact, with or without life even now: we could still (under pandeism) be biological robots under Darwinism!! If not, why?
 
#15
I still can't figure out who that purple dude in the middle is. The mask on the left and the eye-ball cloud also elude me.
The purple dude in the middle is probably an classic (extraterrestrial) UFO-riding alien, since, according to a few paleocontact proponents, we were created - culturally and socially, maybe even physically - by these super-sentinents.

And Horus... Are the painter(s) trying to show a reverence to Aleister Crowley and Thelema?
 
#17
I am still trying to work out if pandeism has any specific consequences for the universe and us now! From what you say here, perhaps not. I ask, for example, does the 'underlying force sustaining our Universe' have any consequences for life and consciousness? Or is every pandeist free to make up their idealist, materialist, or humanist version, with or without life after death. In fact, with or without life even now: we could still (under pandeism) be biological robots under Darwinism!! If not, why?
I wouldn't characterize it as being "free to make up" so much as "free to develop a logical argument as to why it is probable that"....
 
#19
Hello!! I just wanted to confirm, not only that Bernardo has been invited to write, but that he has submitted his article, and it is fantastic -- will be one of the best in the book.
And that the Kickstarter is moving along beautifully as well.

And to answer the distinction posed above of the difference between Pandeism and Panentheism, in Pandeism there is no part of our Creator which is separate from our Universe, so long as our Universe exists. First the Creator exists; and then in becoming our Universe, it wholly invests itself so that only our Universe exists; and then, when our Universe is done doing whatever it does, it possible returns to being the Creator (enriched by the knowledge of having existed as our Universe and everything in it).
This is very interesting. I'm trying to understand though how you would define the Creator. Would you define the Creator as an actual supreme being, or more like that which is the possibilty of being, i.e the "background" which allows for individual being and physical beings. Henry Corbin in one of his last presentations at Eranos argued against confusing that which preceeds being and the possiblity of being, with an actual physical being, even if that being is an ens supremum (supreme being). Here are some excerpts from a letter of his that touch on some of his key arguments.

“If, in effect, God is solely Being [Etre], then he could not himself properly be a being or an ens [Etant], not even a "Supreme Being" (ens supremum). By confusing Being with a supreme being (ens supremum), that is, by making of Esse an ens supremum, monotheism perishes in its triumph. It elevates an idol just at the point where it denounces such in a polytheism it poorly understands.”

“By confusing the uniqueness of Divinity (Theotes) with a singular God (theos) which excludes all other gods (theoi), unique Being with a singular being, monotheistic theology has itself prepared the way for precisely… "the death of God,””

“The uniquely Divine (Theotes) aspires to be revealed and can only be revealed in multiple theophanies. Each one is autonomous, different from the other, each quite close to being a hypostasis, yet at the same time the totality of Theotes is in each theophanic form.”

“Moreover, rather than polytheism, I have spoken often of mystical kathenotheism. The kath'hena seems to me to be the category that is essential for the pluralism of theophanic forms. These are like the Dii-Angeli of Proclus, and I believe that my theophanic kathenotheism is allied with your "polytheism" in the sense that it is like a monadology which frees us from the totalitarian block of monotheism and from its secular forms.”

Excerpts taken from Prefatory Letter to The New Polytheism by David L. Miller, Henry Corbin, February 9, 1978.
 
Top