APPENDIX Z24: Context

Published on 24 Jun 2016 at 1:22 pm. Comments Off on APPENDIX Z24: Context.
Filed under Uncategorized.

APPENDIX Z24:
Context
Heretofore, we essentially
generally operated without
overall context. Most elds of knowledge have
oated
essentially on their own (or linked to close elds)
in an
ineffable and greatly
inexplicable cosmos. Not explicated-
by or tethered-to an all-enveloping metaphysics.
Summa,
however, offers a powerful
all-embracing context and
integrated thesis.
While the author and many academic luminaries
believe
Summa to be on-the-mark, it may or may not be. But,
certain aspects regarding
Summa are hard to dispute:
It seems to be elegant, powerful,
overarching, integrated
and holistic.
Its core thesis has remained
unchallenged.
It alone among known metaphysical schemas
systematically and conceptually seems to truly
unify
Science, Spirituality,
Philosophy and Religion.

And, nally, Summa is essentially “the only game in
town.” There is simply no known bona de
directly
competing, even somewhat compelling (overarching
and well-integrated) metaphysics known to us.*
*
Respectfully, classic
religious philosophies are not counted here
as competing metaphysics. Respectfully, their systems tend to
include as integral to their core paradigms, a
particular ineffable
and inexplicable deity or divine. Ditto for
(obscure) Taoism. Rather,
religious philosophies can and should consider
Summa as a
potential add-on or wrap-around schema.
The alleged competitor to Summa –
Neoplatonism’s ancient
offshoot schema Aristotelianism – is, respectfully, simply too
simplistic, too assumption-laden, too incomplete
and, respectfully,
more accurately in the realm
of religious philosophy. As noted [see
Khalil “Foreword”]:
Aristotelianism has a gaping-hole in it.
As well, Aristotelianism is often dead-wrong. For
instance, it
postulates that the Sun rotates around the Earth.

APPENDIX Z23: Explication

Published on 24 Jun 2016 at 1:19 pm. Comments Off on APPENDIX Z23: Explication.
Filed under Uncategorized.

APPENDIX Z23:
Explication
Q4P
∞
is perhaps also explicated as –
The cosmic Supra-Instinct & Essence.
The underling cosmic Progenitor & Dynamic.
The cosmic Common-Denominator & Imperative.
The font, essence and drive of the cosmos.
The [Divine] Qi of the
Cosmos.
The (elusive) [Chinese] Tao
– the “source of everything.”*
a
The (elusive) [Jewish] Lurianic
Kabballah mystical En Sof.*
b
The Innite and dynamic Divine.
The Biblical Eheyeh asher Eheyeh.*
c

Simultaneously, the Macro and Micro essence of the
cosmic order.
The Holy Grail of the cosmos….
The mysterium tremendum
while at the same time,
encompassing the entire dynamic cosmic order
*
a
Never explicated by obscure Taoism (Daoism), even though
everyone is referred to
the collected works of Laozi (and Zhuangzi)
which, in turn, never explicate the Tao except very elliptically
and very obscurely/ambiguously. [Note that Taoism is a philosophy
or religious tradition which emphasizes living in
harmony with the
aforementioned (obscure)
Tao.]
*
b
The “No End”: Dealt with
extensively in Summa I: God and Evil
*
c
“I WILL BE THAT WHICH I
WILL BE” – The self-proclaimed Identity
of the God of Israel to Moses at the ‘Burning
Bush’ episode –
when God reveals Himself to Moses.

Simultaneously, the Macro and Micro essence of the
cosmic order.
The Holy Grail of the cosmos….
The mysterium tremendum
while at the same time,
encompassing the entire dynamic cosmic order
*
a
Never explicated by obscure Taoism (Daoism), even though
everyone is referred to
the collected works of Laozi (and Zhuangzi)
which, in turn, never explicate the Tao except very elliptically
and very obscurely/ambiguously. [Note that Taoism is a philosophy
or religious tradition which emphasizes living in
harmony with the
aforementioned (obscure)
Tao.]
*
b
The “No End”: Dealt with
extensively in Summa I: God and Evil
*
c
“I WILL BE THAT WHICH I
WILL BE” – The self-proclaimed Identity
of the God of Israel to Moses at the ‘Burning
Bush’ episode –
when God reveals Himself to Moses.

APPENDIX Z22: The Q4P ‘Package’

Published on 24 Jun 2016 at 1:16 pm. Comments Off on APPENDIX Z22: The Q4P ‘Package’.
Filed under Uncategorized.

APPENDIX Z22:
The Q4P
∞
‘Package’
…Includes but is not limited to the components
Recursive / Looping upon itself / Self-Referencing
/
Iterative / Self-Sustaining*
a
As argued, “Possibility” is the sole “dynamic” which
can
arguably have been eternal. This is “self-evident.”
Then
hypothesizing that Q4P
∞
evolved from “Possibility” is,
respectfully, not a major
conceptual leap.
Q4P
∞
is a rare “conceptualized dynamic” which could be
hypothesized to have taken the (budding) cosmic
order
from the metaphysical to the physical.
It is this sui generis
inter-related bundle of attributes*
b
– and related – which decisively arm the Q4P
∞
candidacy
as the prime protagonist in the cosmic drama.
*
a
Self-sustaing relates, as well, to the “leveraged
buyout” aspect
delineated in the text:
Potentials down-the-road ignite the present
(Genesis Point). But note that these same potentials-down-the-
road also help sustain and nourish the ongoing drama.
*
b
It is the architectural/conceptual ‘elegance’ of
‘the package’ which
so-to-speak ‘gives it a chance.’

APPENDIX Z21: The Assertion/Claim

Published on 24 Jun 2016 at 1:16 pm. Comments Off on APPENDIX Z21: The Assertion/Claim.
Filed under Uncategorized.

APPENDIX Z21:
The Assertion/Claim
The assertion/claim herein is that Summa is the
optimal working hypothesis
for a unied and integrated
metaphysics. Of course, like all hypotheses, it
should be
probed, challenged and debated.
While it is certainly true that Summa frontally
challenges
the heavily-entrenched academic status quo,
perhaps
Summa’s hypothesis is actually right.
Perhaps that* is possibly sufcient reason for
establishment academia to very seriously debate
and
consider it, even if the academic establishment is
simultaneously threatened by it.
*being right

APPENDIX Z19: The Data

Published on 24 Jun 2016 at 1:09 pm. Comments Off on APPENDIX Z19: The Data.
Filed under Uncategorized.

APPENDIX Z19:
The Data
Comporting to the data v.
Data proving the hypothesis
Metaphysicians doing metaphysics seek an
all-embracing
hypothesis, at-a-minimum comporting to the data.
Metaphysicians seek ‘aesthetic elegance.’
Physicists doing physics want testability.
They want
data proving the hypothesis. To them, a successful
experiment is by denition elegant. To them, Grand
Theory metaphysics is not Center Stage – as by
denition
it cannot be proven.
Now, Summa poses an
intriguing issue for physics.

Because, on the one hand, (innite) Summa cannot
necessarily be proven in the classic sense, which
physics
would prefer. Eve though
it is always hard to prove the
innite and/or timeless.
But, on the other hand,
(a) Summa lls-in crucial and key gaps in physics
and
(b) No data or knowledge accumulated in the past
5,000+ years at all contradicts Summa.
No other metaphysics can make these claims.
Thus, the fully synchronous data underpins Summa,
while
Summa underpins physics and astrophysics et al.

APPENDIX Z18: A Fix-It “Conceptual Plug”?

Published on 24 Jun 2016 at 1:06 pm. Comments Off on APPENDIX Z18: A Fix-It “Conceptual Plug”?.
Filed under Uncategorized.

APPENDIX Z18:
A Fix-It “Conceptual Plug”?
The Summa series started out with God and Evil
(1988). In that work it was demonstrated how Q4P
∞
potentially might not just solve the classic
philosophical-
religious conundrum of Theodicy, but would seem
to simultaneously solve as well several other key
philosophical issues in metaphysics.
As pointed-out in this volume, God and Good, many/
most/all major elds – not just Metaphysics – would
seem
to have gaping holes in them. The appendix relating
to
noted scientist Atkins, for instance, highlights via
excerpts
from his works – gaping holes in the physical
sciences.
This ‘gaping-hole’ issue ranges through Astrophysics,
Biology, Anthropology, Philosophy, Theology,
Cosmology,
Life Sciences and on-and-on.
The key elds – and probably all related elds – have
major gaps.
Now, adroitly plugging Q4P
∞
/Extraordinariation into the

respective gaps, seems to potentially
close-the-gaps.
(Is that the world’s most
grandiose assertion or what?)
Thus, we have an intriguing potential
simultaneous solution on a very grand scale.
Are we catching your attention yet?
Several examples:
Evolutionary Biology: What drives Evolution?
Physiology: What drives Consciousness?
Astrophysics: What ignited/drove the Big Bang,
in particular?
Cosmology: What ignited creation and maintains
the Cosmos more generally?
Metaphysics: What is the purpose of Man, the
cosmos?

Astronomy: Why is the cosmic order so wondrous?
Life Sciences: What drives Life? What is Life?
What makes Life so tenacious?
Anthropology: what drives the ‘Ascent of Man’?
Love Science: What drives Love?
and, of course, our initial inquiry into the
Theodicy
question-
Religious Philosophy: Theodicy question – If there
is
a God who is all-powerful and merciful, why is there
gross evil?

APPENDIX Z17: Particle Physics and Q4P

Published on 24 Jun 2016 at 1:04 pm. Comments Off on APPENDIX Z17: Particle Physics and Q4P.
Filed under Uncategorized.

APPENDIX Z17:
Particle Physics and Q4P
∞
Interacting with a layer of Q4P
∞
?
Higgs mechanism*
“In particle physics, the Higgs mechanism is the
process
that gives mass to elementary particles. The
particles gain
mass by interacting with the Higgs eld that
permeates all
space….”
*Wikipedia Online, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Higgs_mechanism (accessed March 5, 2012)

APPENDIX Z16: Atheist v. Potentialist Atkins* v. Birnbaum

Published on 24 Jun 2016 at 1:03 pm. Comments Off on APPENDIX Z16: Atheist v. Potentialist Atkins* v. Birnbaum.
Filed under Uncategorized.

APPENDIX Z16:
Atheist v. Potentialist
Atkins* v. Birnbaum
consonant with Summa:
“simplicity”
“…The only clue we have at the outset is that the
nal
answer will almost certainly be one of extreme
simplicity,
for only the perfectly simple can come into
existence….
what we perceive of as complexity may be the
outcome
of chains of simplicity.”
(p. 7)*
a
“…Somehow matter must have been created out of
something resembling nothing….” (p. 11)*
a

Intersecting with Summa:
“Mega-organism”
“…our own nominally civilized, cultivated,
intelligent, and
reective level of life emerged when organisms
stumbled
on a way of passing on
intricate, unpredictable information
to others around them and following them. It did so
by
inventing language and effectively binding together
all
human organisms, past, present, and future into a single
mega-organism of potentially boundlesss
achievement.”
(p.33)*
b
polar opposite to Summa:
“collapse into chaos”
“Aspirations… feed on (purposeless) decay”
“….All change, I shall argue, arises from an
underlying
collapse into chaos. We shall see that what may
appear
to us to be motive and purpose, is in fact
ultimately
motiveless, purposeless decay. Aspirations and their
achievement, feed on [purposeless] decay.” (p. 21)*
a
*a
Peter Atkins, Creation Revisited, The Origin of Space, Time and the Universe
(London, England: Penguin Books, 1992)
*b
Peter Atkins, Galileo’s Finger, The Ten Great Ideas of Sciences, (Oxford, England:
Oxford University Press,
2003)

APPENDIX Z15: Gnosticism

Published on 24 Jun 2016 at 1:00 pm. Comments Off on APPENDIX Z15: Gnosticism.
Filed under Uncategorized.

APPENDIX Z15:
Gnosticism
(selected WIKI excerpts)*
“Gnosticism (from gnostikos, “learned”, from Greek:
γνῶσις gnōsis, knowledge) is a modern scholarly
term for a set of religious beliefs and spiritual
practices
found among some of the early Christian sects
called
“gnostic” (“learned”) by Irenaeus and other early
Christian
heresiologists. The term also has reference to parallels
and possible pre-Christian inuences of the
Christian
gnostics.
Gnosticism was primarily dened in Christian
context, or
as ‘the acute Hellenization of Christianity’ per
Adolf von
Harnack (1885), until Moritz Friedländer (1898)
advocated
Hellenistic Jewish origins, and Wilhelm Bousset (1907)
advocated Persian origins….”

Common characteristics
“….The Christian sects rst called “gnostic” a
branch
of Christianity, however
Joseph Jacobs and Ludwig
Blau (Jewish Encyclopedia, 1911) note that much of
the
terminology employed is Jewish and note that this
“proves
at least that the principal elements of gnosticism
were
derived from Jewish speculation,….”
Monad (apophatic theology)
“In many Gnostic systems (and heresiologies), God
is
known as the Monad, the One, The Absolute, Aion
teleos
(The Perfect Æon), Bythos (Depth or Profundity, Βυθος),
Proarkhe (Before the
Beginning, προαρχη), and E Arkhe
(The Beginning, η αρχη).
God is the high source of the
pleroma, the region of
light. The various emanations of
God are called æons.
Within certain variations
of Gnosticism, especially those
inspired by Monoimus, the Monad was the highest
God
which created lesser gods, or elements (similar to
æons).
According to Hippolytus, this view was inspired by the
Pythagoreans, who called the rst thing that came
into
existence the Monad, which begat the dyad, which
begat
the numbers, which begat the point, begetting
lines,
etc….”
*
Wikipedia Online, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gnosticism (accessesd February 26, 2012)

APPENDIX Z14: “Nothing”

Published on 24 Jun 2016 at 12:58 pm. Comments Off on APPENDIX Z14: “Nothing”.
Filed under Uncategorized.

APPENDIX Z14:
“Nothing”
It would be incorrect, of course, to imply or
infer
that Summa maintains that NOTHING preceded all.
That position, respectfully, would, by denition, be a
metaphysical ‘dead end.’
The ‘starting point’ of the cosmos is not NOTHING.
Rather, Summa proposes that ‘Potential/Possibility’ was/
is eternal. And ‘Potential/Possibility’ is clearly a
far more
complex and a far richer concept than ‘Nothing.’
While, one can posit that by denition ‘Potential/
Possibility’ is eternal, one can also posit that by
denition
‘Nothing’ is just that – nothing. And no entity or
agent or
force can turn nothing into something. By denition.
Now,
‘Potential/Possibility’ may, indeed have dimensions/
facets of which we are either unaware, or cannot fully

grasp. ‘Possibility/Potential’ in turn, may have had
the
ability to traverse – or impel the traversing – from
the
metaphysical to reality as we know it.
‘Possibility/Potential’ may have had the power, ultimately,
to divide ‘0’* ( hypothesized core “zero-point/integer” )
into positives and negatives, as discussed in the
text.
And, herein, in my estimation, is most probably the crux of
the genesis of our little universe.
*technical note:
maybe we should treat the Hebrew word ayin as “0”
“Cosmologists sometimes claim that the universe can
arise ‘from
nothing.’ But this is loose language. Even if
shrunk to a point or a
quantum state, our universe is latent with
particles and forces: it has far
more content and structure
than what a philosopher calls ‘nothing.’”
(Martin Rees, Our Cosmic Habitat, p. 142)

« Previous Page — « Previous Entries Next Entries » — Next Page »

Chapters