DAVID BIRNBAUM METAPHYSICS
DAVID BIRNBAUM PHILOSOPHY
from Book 1 (God and Evil)
Quest for Potential∞
drives the cosmos
All advance, life, reality, creativity, texture, progress
flows from this one Singularity
Quest for Potential∞ is at the epicenter of the Divine
Now, Book #2 (God and Good) can be encapsulated
in one phrase…
At the end–of–the–rainbow,
the Infinite Divine Extraordinariation1, 2, 3
retroactively ignites Creation.
The most awesome potential of all might be… after all, …Potential Divinity…
meaning… at the “end–of–the–rainbow”… at the end of hopefully many millennium of human advance in consciousness… almost as an INFINITY to be approached, but not quite realized, is “INFINITE
DIVINE EXTRAORDINARIATION”…and it is this
awesome POTENTIAL at the very end-of-the-rainbow
which IGNITED Creation.
Meaning, YES, via its awesome POTENTIAL
“the DIVINE” at Infinity–forward, retroactively ignites Creation at Infinity–backwards…
* * * for, only this INFINITE DIVINE EXTRAORDINARIATION would have the POTENTIAL–power to suck LIFE & CREATION from out of the VOID * * *
So, is the Divine
– at the beginning, or
– ongoing, or
– at the end?
NOTES by KHALIL
1 Infinite Divine Extraordinariation A: With this, “Divine Perfection” which was left somewhat dangling metaphysically in God and Evil, is hereby made crucial for the creation and sustenance of the cosmos. Divine Perfection is rescued, as it were.
2 Infinite Divine Extraordinariation B: In God and Evil the prime role of the Divine was as igniter of the cosmos. In God and Evil the Divine was seemingly detached from the maintenance of the universe. Now it is clear, the Divine has a direct role in the perpetual progression of the cosmos, as Quest for Potential∞ pierces through time and space to continually energize life and existence.
3 Infinite Divine Extraordinariation C: As in Book #1 (God and Evil) the reader is essentially given the implicit option of jettisoning the “religious” Divine, for a “secular” Divine of pure potential. The author tilts in the “religious” direction, and writes his works in that context, but both works can be read either way – and the author is meticulous in leaving both options implicitly open. Essentially the author, while writing within the Jewish context he works within, is saying (at not inconsiderable theological peril) that philosophically the cosmos can be viewed – and approached – either way.