13._ Unification

Observing the diverse levels of emergency that we can recognize in the past, such as the one of material particles, the one of atoms, the one of molecules, the one of the cells, the one of the pluricellular organisms, the one of the animals..., we can notice a universal tendency from the manifold to the one, from the separated thing to the united thing, from the simple thing to the complex, from the elements to the unified whole.

Without going farther, in our own identity we have the best example. There is a very complex multiplicity: the one of the cells that compose our body, the one of our organs that are reconciled functionally, the one of ours psyche that contains so many aspects of the consciousness and the unconsciousness. But this multiplicity which we are is so well organized and integrated that it causes the emergence of which we feel intimately like a unit, a monad: our person.

Thus, in the cosmic creative process it is possible to establish a principle of unification, based on the progressive organization --or self-organization-- of basic elements like parts of "wholes", "monads", emergent. According to this, in the origin, the inferior limit of the process would be the greater possible multiplicity and extreme disorganization --the nothing--, and in the peak, in the superior limit, it would be the total unit, in the absolute integrity of the most complete organization: God.

In addition, as the space and the time are aspects of the multiplicity on the way to organization, when it is arrived at the end of the process, and disappears the multiplicity and the organization completes, necessarily space and time are trascended.

It remembers to us, making a resemblance, not an identification, which happens when a "black hole" forms, when an enormous amount of matter implodes towards a singularity in which the laws of the physics are invalidated.
Another resemblance would be the one of an embryo, representing the universe, that is developed passing through diverse phases until ending up breaking the "rind" of its "space-temporary egg".

All these considerations take to us to think that God, the Last Newness, the aim of the cosmic creative process, is one and trascendent.

14._ Person

We affirm that from the inside of the human level of emergence it is impossible to predict --to know "a priori"-- the characteristics or behaviors of the emergent ones of superior levels. That does not mean necessarily that the emergent behaviors in the human level, and the previous levels, cannot be successfully reduced --"a posteriori", of course-- to those of preceding levels.

But we observe that each level surpasses radically to the precedent "assuming it", is to say that it does not annihilate, it does not ignore, it does not contradict, the preceding emergent characteristics, but that includes them, it assumes them, it incorporates them, exceeding them nevertheless in his absolute newness. Thus we see it when considering that the human being is truly an animal, truly an alive being, truly a material being.We can say that it is deduced of the "dialectic" of the emergence.

If this continues being fulfilled in the future levels, as we believe, then, although it is impossible to predict them with certainty, we can hope that they assume, exceeding them without contradicting them, the essential human qualities. In other words, the emergent futures will be more than human but, at least, they will be basically like the humans in its essential characteristics, in the same way that we the human beings are more than animals, but we have basically the essential characteristics of the animals.

The humans we are essentially self-conscious beings and equipped with symbolic thought. It takes to us to extend the natural impulse of satisfaction and survival that we have as alive beings, in an ethical, aesthetic and cognitive development, that goes from "the individual ego" towards "the universal whole". Thus our qualities of understanding and will are conformed. We summarized it saying that each human individual is a "person".

Following the reasoning previous, we can affirm that the emergent superior ones to the human level will be, at least, persons, although they will go much farther; they will be, we could say, "ultra" personal, but, yes, basically, personal.

In particular, this is applied to God. Although in our level it is impossible to us to know Him, and we do not prune to say nothing positively certain about Him, we think that we can affirm that is, at least, personal. It is radically different, exceeding it, to any existing being, but it looks like, basically, more to a human being than to any other thing which at the moment we pruned to know. We are the "image and similarity" of God.

Thus, in a valid analogy, we can speak of the divine understanding and will.

On the other hand, if we see in our ethical, aesthetic and cognitive development the presence of the spirit of God, a manifestation of the creative tendency that impels towards God, then we can affirm to God like the consumation of our hopes, like the perfect good, the beauty, and the truth.
So that the divine understanding and will would not correspond properly to such a development, but to its perfect consumation, the accomplishment absolutely attained of the Spirit.

15._ Creator

We believe, then, in God, that is one, trascendent, personal, the absolute good, beauty and truth; that He will emerge from the universe like last newness, like perfect accomplishment of His Spirit immanent in the Nature. Speaking in the own time of the universe, we hope that it happens in a future, in a while that is impossible to predict to us, although we suppose that it can be within thousands of million years, although in "human existential time" it can be infinitely distant.

But even though the "threshold" of divine emergence we can try to locate it in a future time, God is trascendent to the time and space; He does not "exists" in a moment future, neither present, nor past; He is "eternal", which usually is expressed saying that "He is, was and will be". He is the culmination of the universe, but He does not belong to the universe, He is not, nor it will be, an "existing being in the universe".

The own time of the universe is a construction of the cosmic process, not an absolute frame of all reality. From the inside of the process --as we are-- we cannot current think but in temporary terms.
Nevertheless, by means of an abstraction effort we can be placed in a point of view that orders the realities "ontologically" (ontic order), instead of "chronologically" (noetic order). Conscious that the time is not a referring absolute but a rather apparent one, we confer more truth to this vision than to the habitual one.

According to it, God is the truest reality, incomparably. God is the reason of being, the final cause, the foundation, of all the temporary realities. According to this vision, which we have called "of return", the truth is that it is God that creates the universe, the process and whichever this one contains. The temporary ordering, that suggests nature creates God, projecting the conception of efficient causality that is inner to the process, is illusory. The process only exists "founded on" God, who is thus truely the subject, not the object, of the Creation.

When we locate the emergence of God in a distant future, which is equivalent to say: "God still does not exist, we are creating him", we are not truly limiting the reality of God, but reflecting the fact of our own poor reality, interior to the process. That of which God appears in our future is a limitation ours, not of God.

16._ Dialogue

It is clear that to see with the "return vision" it is necessary to believe first in God. We think that it is a perfectly legitimate attitude --the one that we maintain--, and not merely as a reasonable hypothesis or useful postulation, although requires of special foundations of which we will speak later.

The attitude or vision "of going", that only takes into account the inner reality to the process, and that doubts the purpose of this one, also seems to us certainly legitimate. Even more, we thought that it is advisable and necessary in some scopes --like scientist--, although it is not more than to preserve us of certain contamination "deist" who could alienate us of our own capacities and responsibilities, when attributing everything to a "Deus ex-machina" not truly immanent.

But also we thought that both visions can be maintained without contradiction, perhaps alternating, without wanting to mix them or synthesizing them, each one in its independent scope, but dialoguing as far as possible to become rich mutually.

(If a somewhat colorful resemblance is allowed us, both visions are like the lights of an automobile: the short one is the one "of going", the long one is the one "of return".)

previous-blog----------------------------------------------index----------------------------------------------------------next-blog