The pantheist’s fundamental a-morality The pantheist experiences and therefore knows that each and every beginning^1 is good. Each beginning is good^2 because it emerges as whole,^3 albeit localised elaboration of the basic set of creation rules, commonly called God.^4 And God, as rules set, is good simply because IT creates, i.e. gives birth.^5 Since the pantheist, being God,^6 knows that all is good because all beginnings are good, she, as singular application of the rules of creation, actually functions as a pre- or amoral unit.^7 However, if and when the pantheist operates as member of a group, and the group too is an emerged application of God, hence God manifested,^8 then, smart as she is,^9 she will abide by that group’s survival rules, called morals.^10 To the pantheist, good means perfect^11 application^12 of the rules of creation. To the pantheist bad means imperfect^13 application of the rules of creation. Hence, as smarter people than me have observed, there is no bad as such but merely a lack of good. So the amoral^14 pantheist experiences herself^15 and all other phenomena in the universe^16 as good simply because she and they exist.^17 And furthermore she experiences herself and all other phenomena in the world as good because she and they survive to continue to exist. And the pantheist experiences herself as bad if and when her survival capacity (but not that of any other phenomenon in the universe^18) decreases, thus impairing her existence and her capacity to create new life.^19 Home © 2018 by Victor Langheld

1. Every birth, meaning every next elaboration, indeed, manifestation of the whole automatic basic set of creation rules. Hence: ‘The right (or good) Way (or step) is the untrodden (or next step). It becomes the wrong (or bad) Way when you’ve stepped on it.’ Victor 1976 2. Each end (i.e. death) is bad in that it lacks the good of the beginning as birth (of the new, i.e. of ‘difference that makes a difference.’) 3. Each new manifestation, hence a quantum as singularity, happens as a decided differentiated recursion of the entire creation rules set (as algorithm), hence whole and complete, therefore perfect. 4. For God read: G.O.D. = General Ordering Device 5. See Genesis 1. The inventor of Genesis 1 expressed the pantheist’s view, namely that all created things are created good (Hebrew: towb), hence present as pre- or a-moral. That begged the question as to where the bad (Hebrew: ra’) came from. Since the pantheist’s understanding of bad as a lack of good (as unfit for survival) was politically unacceptable because unmanageable to the ancient Jews, some unknown Hebrew scribe, possibly living in Babylon, borrowed the story/fantasy of Adam and the garden of Eden from the Sumerians and then fantasised the tree of (communal) morality, i.e. the Tree of Good (i.e. right) and Bad (i.e. wrong), so as to be able to define bad in positive terms (for instance, as disobedience) rather than in negative terms as ‘a lack of good.’ At the same time that ruthless Hebrew scoundrel invented the initiator of the bad, namely the woman, Eve, and whom Tertullian later called ‘The Gateway to the Devil.’ The Hebrew Garden of Eden fantasy was one of the most malevolent, indeed criminal hoaxes of all time and which still being played out by Jews, Christians and Muslims alike. 6. An emerged singularity (thus monarch) running locally on, therefore as the entire, hence universal set of creation rules, meaning God. A singularity (or, as the Upanishads put it, ‘A One without a Second’) is pre- or amoral. It (i.e. God as set of creation rules) is also, as the Upanishads elaborate, incomplete. After all, it takes two to tango. 7. In other words, (as monarch = God) she can, from her perspective, know and do only good, thus cannot know or do bad, somewhat like an elephant in a china shop or a drunken German in an Irish Pub in Galway, both ‘doing what comes naturally.’ 8. Every whole (as unit or quantum, hence singularity) happens as God application. Hence a group-as-a-whole elaboration operates the same basic survival rules as each individual group member. Because that is so, God as creation rules set generating and running each phenomenon in the universe operates as distributed network. 9. Meaning responding naturally because she has ‘pulled the cultural finger out.’ The principle, i.e. first or chief rule of nature is: ‘The smart get to eat and the dumb get eaten!’ And getting eaten is bad! 10. She accepts the group’s rules, i.e. the moral set-up, because doing do promises her increased relative survival capacity. 11. For ‘perfect’ read: complete, hence certain. 12. For ‘application’ that produces manifestation read: worship. The pantheist’s act of worship is her application (in the everyday world) of her natural function of creation, i.e. of her local elaboration of her basic function of creation, hence acting as God (in her niche) furthering the creation process. 13. For ‘imperfect’ read: incomplete, uincertain. 14. A-moral because she actually does and so knows only the good. She (as God) is in fact blind (like God) to the consequences (or content) of her creative action. See Genesis 2 where God creates Adam alone, ‘and which is not good’, and then creates animal helpmates for the Adam which the latter rejects as ‘simply not good enough, dear God! But a cloned and therefore identical twin sister would do just fine!’ 15. As a singularity. 16. i.e. as singularities 17. i.e. in relation to her. 18. And which serve as prey. The pantheist as biological unit functions as both predator and prey. She can experience herself as good or bad in either function. 19. That is to say, her true because fundamental function as one node of the distrusted network of the creation function, i.e. God.