First Thoughts on the Unknowable

A Metaphysical Cosmology of the Realms of Being

Consider the hierarchy presented below, within are titled levels of existence, with the introduction of the 'Unknowable Realm' - the purpose of this article. Below the titles are a metaphysical stations of existence, the metaphysical stations encompass categories which may be applied to any state higher than themselves, an elementary consequence of reflection. However it is thus necessary to treat the Knowable Realm as encompassing all the levels of existence below it, so that the hierarchy presented is complete. From a downward perspective we of course see ontological reflection of, for example, 'Isness' as pervading the very fabric of existence. This ontological reflection however is presented itself in 'Becoming' as a form of 'Isness' and 'Being' as a form of 'Becoming'. The upward reflection is of philosophical importance in its essence being completely contained within the higher totalities thereby allowing us to prescribe the category to all stages of the hierarchy, and more importantly to provide a concrete platform for meaningful discussion, for example to identify 'Being' as a fundamental a priori notion of the soul. Underneath the metaphysical station I have elaborated as to the nature of its locus of manifestation, for example 'thinking' is the manifestation of the awareness of 'Being'.

Soul 

Isness

Produces The Field of Cosmic Imagination 

↓

The Unknowable Realm

Becoming

Feeling

↓

The Knowable Realm

Being 

Thinking

Discourse into the Metaphysical Stations of Existence

The 'Isness' of the Soul is the most mystical and necessarily fundamental. The Soul simply 'Is', this statement is the ultimate reduction of our awareness of reality, which through the course of my philosophy we have shown is no different from awareness of the self and the absolute conceived totality of the self. The Soul as we have said, is the metaphysical first and the epistemological last structure of existence. To discuss the soul is error, to doubt it is a paradox. Again, my article 'The Metaphysics of Awareness' explains this idea in more detail, that any 'doubt' must occur within the infinite kingdom of the aware Soul, and so even doubting is in itself a manifestation of the 'Isness' of the Soul. The Soul as the direct reflection of God provides the greatest insight into his Being, that more so than Being and more so than a perpetual self-Becoming there lies a pure 'Isness'. To Isness there is no prior, there is no greater and no whole, Isness is, just as God is, and the Soul with him .

Beyond 'Being' is 'Becoming', for things that are said to 'Be' can 'Be' only in their ontological state as resting upon their singularity, upon the higher plenum. It is in this consequential notion of 'Being' that I use the term 'Becoming' to refer to the metaphysical state of the Unknowable Realm, first we 'Become' and then we may 'Be'. As thought is awareness inside the Knowable Realm, truth is the awareness of the Knowable Realm as a totality. The Knowable Realm in its vast ocean of Being gravitating and perfecting in orbit the ideals of knowledge drawn to the sun of wisdom, a light of truth, cannot be conceived in a mere spectacle of awareness in an instance of 'Being', it requires a movement of spiritual sensuality, a flooding of consciousness woven into a state of being, a  'Becoming' of the Soul.

The 'Being' of the Knowable Realm is a category of fundamental unity, conceived within the boundaries of its existence. All objects of awareness are said to have being, this fundamental category has been conceived within the bounds of Ontological Logic and consequently abstracted in a transcendental fashion, so to elevate its status from a conceived logical category to now a metaphysical perceived category which can be applied to each state and level of existence, and prescribed to Divinity itself. From the Knowable Realm as enveloping and absorbing into its essence that below it, it henceforth follows that Being is the category applicable to all existence, of every state and station. This is not a new concept, nor am I purporting this to be a proof or any sort of elucidation into previous discussion on 'Being', this is simply a reframing of previous discussion within the context of this article. 

The First Illumination of the Unknowable Realm

The knowable is the lens of philosophy, and has given rise to the most powerful and persisting illusion of human understanding: that all must be an image of the knowable. This is to presuppose the knowable as the highest boundary of existence, we have defined the Soul to be the highest totality of the self and have shown there to be an ideal of Truth transcendent of the knowable categories hereby thoroughly shattering this illusion. This first transcendence is how we construct a heaven of the 'Unknowable Realm' above the Knowable, and imagine it as a blanket of stars encompassing the world seen. Truth is an ideal, understanding is its respective state of being. The disjunction between ideals and states of being is arbitrary and is provided only for the purpose of clarification, just as we introduced Cosmic Imagination as an alternative statement of the Soul.

Philosophy is wisdom, and wisdom is the incarnate of truth manifested in dimensions of knowledge; it is the alignment of knowledge with the higher ideal. I have used the term spiritual sensuality to describe the nature of the Unknowable Realm. The material realm is concerned with physical sensuality, the Knowable with the sensuality of thought, and the Unknowable it can be said with feeling. I use the word 'feeling' here to encompass a variety of meanings, indeed the ideals of the Unknowable overflow into the expansion of Being, to flood the mind with thought and the body with emotion, but the waters of passion are effused from the springs of the soul itself, not subject to a mere tasting but requiring a full indulgence and intoxication of the spirit in becoming.

The ideals of becoming find their purest expression in spiritual states, reflected in the capacity of emotion though we must be careful to not conflate the two concepts - experiential emotion is devious in its state, it may not necessarily correspond to ones higher state due to the misrepresentation of the perceptive categories of emotion applied to the physical presence. Just as the Knowable Realm may be understood in infinitely many ways, of different names, relations, and categories, so to is the Unknowable Realm infinitely manifest in dimensions of perception. The particular ideals may vary from systems of philosophy and traditions of spirituality and religion, but some arbitrary examples chosen for the purpose of this discussion could be 'longing' or 'despair'.

The state of being refers to the expression produced from awareness of the ideal, it is the becoming that we speak of. I have given an example of 'despair', I will here make a point to address the notion that spiritual states must be good, for goodness pertains to the elevation of the state of being and thus in this sense despair is the spiritual state motivating one to closeness with the Divine presence. Despair in the context of absolute separation and loneliness, a helplessness and emptiness of purpose leading to the existential angst so to speak and overwhelming one with the pangs of evil is not an ideal of the Unknowable Realm, in fact it is not a reality or existence of any cosmological hierarchy for it is precisely the ignorance, and abasement of the true self that leads to despair. In general evil is the degradation of ones state of being, it is the separation from God. How could the lesser be manifest as the higher? There is no singularity of evil, for evil in itself is the separation from singularity, the absence of totality leading to the darkness of the void, a carnal pride induced to the self-proclaimed divinity, but understand, one is but God of his sorrow.   

To each ideal of the Unknowable there is an entire realm produced. As truth manifests in understanding, understanding manifests in thought; each thought is an instance of the physical presence which draws a higher ontological status through its merging with the essence of the unknowable, a concept is ordained meaning through truth. We find an analogous structure through the ideals of the unknowable such as 'longing', it is an act of becoming which finds expression in the states of longing we may feel in our lives. To attempt to provide an exegesis into longing through the Knowable Realm and namely through Ontological Logic is foolhardy. Yes, it is possible to formulate meaningful metaphysical statements, but of what use are these? One does not satisfy his thirst by glancing at a glass of water, for sight and taste are separate emotions entirely and in this it is meaningless to try to compare one with the other. Similarly, if one seeks to understand the ideal of longing then it is best to mindfully examine its manifest emotion, and conceive the ideal in itself. Truth finds expression in understanding, longing it can be said in separation, if we may temporarily assume that to be its ideal, the name does not matter as explained.

This does lead to a more profound point, that just as the Knowable Realm leads to a system of Ontological Logic which by virtue of ontology finds an apprehension of every metaphysical plane and station, so to does every other Realm of the forms of the Unknowable formulate their respective Ontological system allowing one insight into every sphere of creation through its lenses. In longing one may find the universe contained, and in its fervour discover the splendour of God disclosed. We have expressed the entire field of my philosophy through the Knowable since this is the clearest and the only practical method of communication. One must not idolise the Knowable as the purest path to God, for as we have seen the Knowable too rests upon the Unknowable through inexorable ontology, finds meaning only in that which lies beyond meaning, and is limited in its apparent nondelimitation. Treat every moment of life, every instance of being, and every act of becoming as a path in itself towards Divinity, as a guidance of the Soul towards itself so one may absorb themselves in the Isness of communion.

Truth

We know that Ontological Logic describes the Faculties of Reason and Logic, what can henceforth be called the Intelligible Realm or the Realm of Knowledge. Ontological Logic is rested upon Ontological Circles, which allow for any statement to acquire ontological value, this is to say that any statement of concepts (words) pertains to the actual existent entities themselves. But if logic is to be treated as the life blood of the Intelligible Realm, then Ontological Logic provides a platform to merely explore the waters of the ocean, but its totality as a singularity has not been addressed. I have also spoken of Ontological Logic as formulating logical concepts through pure nameless intuition and understanding but not precisely elucidated into what this pure understanding is. In this article I aim to unify my discussion on the Intelligible Realm through the introduction of truth into my philosophy.

First and foremost we should address the issue of truth relative to the context of a logical system, the system of which would be a form of Ontological Logic as we shall see. We can say a statement is true if it agrees with the pure understanding of the mind through the singularity structure, but since concepts themselves must necessarily be about the singularity structure itself, it follows that a statement is true if it is meaningful. To say that 'a singularity is the totality of form' is true, but the truth does not lie in the statement itself but in the pure ontological category of being, that there is the part and the whole, and our definitions of a 'singularity' and 'form' coincide with this. To say that 'a form is the totality of singularity' is false by our current definition of singularity and form, this statement of concepts is not meaningful with these definitions because it doesn't actually describe anything at all. There is no part which is the totality of its whole, I use italics here to denote the 'nameless structure' and not the concept. Of course in switching our definitions of 'singularity' and 'form' the statement becomes meaningful. Truth in Ontological Logic is thus not a category of the system itself, it cannot be formulated in words. We see this in mathematical logic where truth is treated as an inductive property defined within a logical system,  but a universal absolute formulation of truth simply does not exist. Truth is established in comparing the written form of logic to its pure understanding.  

This is the formulation of truth in Ontological Logic, I shall now address the idea of truth in a Logical System. Ontological Logic is the foundation of all logic in pure nameless understanding, but traditional and mathematical systems of logic are concerned with named statements themselves as displayed below:

A Singularity

↕  Ontological Logic relates

Concept: Of the Singularity

↕ Systems of Logic relates

Concept: Statement of Concepts concerning the Singularity

Of course this hierarchy can be formulated in Ontological Logic itself, and it is clear that the relation between the concepts is a reflection of the relation between the singularity and its respective concept. Since this applies for every statement and formulation of each logic it necessarily follows that a system of logic is a reflection of Ontological Logic. This is the justification behind calling Ontological Logic the singularity of all logical systems. Truth in itself is also reflected into the logical system, a statement of concepts in the system is true if it agrees with the axioms, rules and definitions of the system itself, i.e. the logical formulation of the abstract singularity in concepts, and by the hierarchy this 'logical truth' is true if it agrees with its 'ontological truth'. Note carefully that by truth here I am referring to a universal definition rather than the mathematical one, in terms of mathematics this definition would coincide more with provability, a general statement in the system is true if it can be proven from it.

Mathematical logic from an ontological perspective is awkward, but by its own acknowledgement the common systems of logic are not meant for existential categorisation but rather to provide a constructed platform to ensure consistency. Mathematical logic necessitates the use of naive set theory in its construction, it is this pure naive mathematics which must be taken to be the logical system in the above example. In an actual logical system such as the propositional or predicate calculus the entities of existence are contained within a domain and hence trivialised. It is not these elements of existence that are of concern to the logical system, but it is the rules of their manipulation that mathematical logic studies, for it is here that the notion of consistency and provability arise. Now after addressing this problem we must add an addendum to the argument:

Concept: Statement of Concepts

↕ Interpretation

Concept: Model 

Now this fits the notion of truth of mathematical logic, the statement of concepts is inductively defined to be 'true' mathematically if its interpretation within the model or structure fits what 'it ought to look like'. The hierarchy detailed above thus provides a sense of reflection of truth from the logical statement to the model. I hesitate to amalgamate the two hierarchies together due to complications that emerge by the formulation of mathematical logic which I detailed in the above paragraph. This is not to say that my notion of truth breaks down, but rather it could be said that mathematical logic is not really what we want a logic to look like, with its focus on relation rather than elements. This is perfectly acceptable of course in treating the relations themselves as the singularities, but then I would be interpreting mathematical logic in a way it is not intended to be, as a mathematician I would not be comfortable with this situation. Mathematical logic in some sense provides a closed system of study, but from the meta-view it is clear that the closed system must rest on some prior ontological condition, and this placement into my view of the hierarchy of being allows for us to analyse the situation of mathematical logic. For fear of writing excessively (if I have not already done so) and due to the vast sophistications and subtleties of the interaction of mathematics with philosophy I will end the discourse on this interaction here.

For my last perspective on logical truth I will explain the variation of truth with Worlds of Being. The statement 'the Earth is a planet' is a true statement in this world of being but a false statement in another. To say that 'the Earth is a sun' is true in another universe of the imagination. but false in this one. We have a statement of concepts about a World of Being, and the World of Being itself is a form of the Cosmic Imagination. The statement is true if the World of Being it pertains to is true, but since all Worlds of Being are 'true' in that they exist within the Cosmic Imagination it follows that universally speaking every statement is true in that it is meaningful since it refers to something. The universal definition of truth should therefore not be applied to statement within the World of Being, we must treat the World of Being as a logical system but more powerfully than this we are to treat it as the only logical system. In this case there is only this universe, only what we perceive and conceive inside it, as such existence is reformulated to a constricted understanding as presence within this World of Being. The 'Earth is a planet' is true and the 'Earth is a sun' is false. Of course, this does come down to our perception of this World of Being, perhaps the Earth is a sun in some sort of parallel universe which is apparently contained in this World of Being. The difficulty in ascertaining perception and conceiving the world of being as it really is explains the widespread prevalence of falsehood and lies in our world.

What I speak of next is the Ideal of Truth. If we are to assume all thoughts to be meaningful then all thoughts are true. What their truth is cannot be a thought, it must have a higher ontological state of existence. The beauty here is that this state of existence refers to the 'nameless pure understanding' that Ontological Logic forms the bridge to. This nameless pure understanding is the singularity of all thought, what I call the Ideal of Truth. All thought is a form of truth, and by volition of the will all thought is a striving towards truth. This Ideal is the seed and singularity of the Intelligible Realm, of the Known, Truth, as I shall explain in my next article is an aesthetic form of a more powerful and greater ideal, truth is understanding, and understanding is a feeling, or becoming.

Worlds of Being

The Soul as the absolute totality of the Self can be thought to produce a field of Cosmic Imagination, within this field is contained all possible worlds of being; every universe formed under ordination of its mathematical construct, each abstract structure moulded by pure intuition, the sensations of the soul from the overwhelming despair of sorrow to the intoxicating ecstasy of dissolution, every thought, and every being who can think them, are all forms of the cosmic imagination.

The field of Cosmic Imagination is ontologically equivalent to the Soul, but I introduce it as an elucidation into the precise nature of the totality of the self. The greater totality can be thought of as a macrocosm, but of interest there exists a microcosm which we identify with our instantiated self within its greater part. My philosophy up to this point has primarily concerned itself with a metaphysical view of the macrocosm, and our field of awareness by virtue of the ontological characteristic has placed an ideal of being in this highest state; regardless of our own state of awareness the intelligible has illuminated the darkness of the mind and produced the wisdom of philosophy to allow one a perception into the fundamental unity, and truth, of all being. This meta-view suffices, and is more so necessary for the picture of my philosophy to be composed. But of course I am not one to constrict my gaze to the stars and not dream of myself adorned amongst the heavens. Philosophy aside, we have a life to live, and the nature of this life and how to live it are also fundamental questions to be answered. We speak of an abstract, esoteric nature of the soul and being but we should not fail to recognise our material existence amidst this, for life itself is the journey of the part to the whole, of the lesser to the greater and the self to oneself. And how could this journey come about if we are not aware of our position to begin with?

The part of the microcosm within the whole of its macrocosm is simply a reflection of the singularity-form principle. What complicates the matter is our awareness placed in the mould of the microcosm, and even further by the macrocosm not equating to the absolute totality. What the microcosm and macrocosm actually are can be continuously redefined and debated, for this reason I aim to provide a theoretical structure into their relation and formation by the weaving of the cosmic imagination by the Will.

The human as the microcosm placed within the macrocosm is a reflection of mans relation to God, and this primordial relation is reflected in every fragment of being. A world of being is a system of a microcosm and macrocosm within the cosmic imagination, as such there are infinitely many possible worlds of being varying in the microcosm and macrocosm chosen. The microcosm of this world is the human individual. In a spiritual sense the word human can take a more esoteric and metaphysical connotation referring to the servant of God fashioned directly through the breath of his creator in the realm of the Throne. The Abrahamic narrative of Adam and Eve is an archetypal story of 'man' and 'woman', and also provides the archetypes of the masculine and feminine spirits themselves as parts of the whole, the human. The fall then transmutes into a metaphysical narrative describing our awareness of evil as analogous to forging iron into slavery, and thereby our separation from God is the punishment, and life as the perfection of the human in overcoming evil and attaining absolute Goodness, union with Divinity. However, in the context of this discussion the human being is the microcosm encaging the free soul, the vessel of our pure being. The macrocosm as the world and universe is of course a product of the microcosm, but we are born into a pervading illusion in which the divine truth is a dormant spiritual light only found through goodness, in the striving of knowledge to truth, and truth to beauty, and through beauty a moral perfection is found henceforth completing the true human self. Illusion as falsehood is an agent of evil, it is the very iron of the fetter itself which constrains our soul to a lower plane of being, and its presence is found in our perennial awareness of evil and separation from God.

We cannot know more than this, any philosophical and even spiritual inquiry will perpetually result in  the answer of this perennial state. The truth is that we are in this world, but this world is no different from us, and is of us. As the will strives towards itself, and form to singularity, so it is that the microcosm strives towards its macrocosm, and the human to the whole. Thus this system of being is a product of the Will, and the Divine Will as the singularity of the Will ordains our circumstances and conditions. By reflection it can be concluded that our being in this world is a fundamentally good, not in itself that is, but as a path towards the One. If we are to be separated and unite, sundered and return, then the Will would choose the 'best' world of being for the growth of the self and awareness. In this, one should take solace and comfort in that it was we who chose our path by decree of the Divine, ultimately unto the Divine, and that there is a 'cosmic fate' and heavenly destiny of the self into his or her perfection, the completion and union.

It is imperative that we do not conflate our understanding of our own Will with the Divine Will, our limited perception entails for us to understand the Divine Will as singularity, and our experience should prove that singularity is remarkable different and more profound that its form, taking a new illumination of being completely. I have not addressed the idea of 'free will' but in part of yet, and I hope to write more on this matter, but we as of this moment we can treat our free will to choose thought and action as a reflection of the ontological nature of the absolute Will of oneself. Any contradiction found in comparing our free will to our cosmic fate arises only in comparing things which should be directly incomparable due to their ontological difference. The cosmic fate symbolises the singularity of our perfected self, the totality does not change under the tides of the world and our surroundings, by our success and failure. There are infinitely many possible paths of fate, but each leads to the same totality, found in the path itself. This is to say the the totality of life is life, that the purpose of the path is to walk it, and the perfection of existence is to simply be.

To conclude I have provided an account on the nature of the microcosm and macrocosm and attempted to understand the circumstances of their existence, while the illusion may confine our self to the system we have the ability to transcend it through awareness. This capacity arises through the truth of awareness as the heart of being, the self is pure awareness and the microcosm/macrocosm are manifestations of this awareness, a spectacle on the manifold. We are the manifold. This unity of being is the heart of all spiritual traditions and religions of this world, the truth of Oneness.

To end, I provide an esoteric treatise appealing to the aesthetic senses, an omen to my next article and the beginning of a monumental paradigm shift of my philosophy beyond the intelligible to the aesthetic 'unknowable'.

In the crucible of cosmic imagination was forged a dreamscape, and in this was woven a song of innocence and happiness, sorrow and turmoil. It begins with a babe born from his mothers womb, tempered with love and kindness, a soft air of meekness breathed in his mouth, an agape cry and wide eyed innocence, to grow into a child composing the dreams of his youth. And as age passes the innocent touch of imagination which once coloured the world is now lost to the void fashioned from the sundered multiplicity, to now be overwhelmed with the despair of existence and the utter solitude of separation. To lose and then find, fall and then rise. In a world of chaos, shackled to the fetters of strewn enslavement amongst the vast overgrowth of desire contrived into a palace of ignorance, the once child will perceive a light penetrating the dark ceiling, and in this taste the sweetness of truth and be absorbed in a melody of beauty, for one fleeting moment, but in that moment to grasp an eternity. This is the song of life.

But in this infinite mist of angelic fables and hellish incantations, why was this Earthly abode chosen for us?  Why did we place our spirit between the stars above and the Earth below, a median of the great and petty, an equilibrium of the evil and the good. This life, the human, is a microcosm in itself, a small universe containing its larger. He perceives himself as the part of a greater whole, of family, community, religion, the planet Earth, the cosmos. Yet he himself is the life of each of these constructs, what a hallowed tale yet forced extension of magnificence so far stretched that a distant reach of reality faded almost to nothingness presents its abode for the free spirit. Why would the bird fly into its own cage and dream of release? Why would we fight for the enemy and dream of surrender?

I cannot answer these questions, for this I is not the master of his Will, and this Will is not the Lord of itself, but the Divine Will is the breath of the infinitely merciful and the heart of the infinitely compassionate, surely God is good by highest being unto goodness. More so, surely God is the Goodness, and its maker. The Divine Will decreed itself, and from this was decreed the Will, and from the Will was decreed itself, and from this was a striving to his maker. This is the ontology of the Will in itself exemplified. I do not know, why we would construct the fetters of this world. But I know that I am a slave to God, and I know that God is good. So I know that this world is a path to goodness, that man once fallen to this Earthly abode sundered from Divinity, composed a song of yearning, to please his Lord to bless him to the hallowed surrender so he may once again be one. I know that this life is a journey, to find oneself, and in this to find God. This is my heaven, all that I desire placed in an eternity grasped by my infinite conscience, absorbed into a singularity annihilated under the Divine presence and resurrected by the gaze of God.

This is the esoteric realm, passed beyond the clear shores of the knowable, know we sail to the distant horizon of the unknown and in this strange land we wage our struggle through every plane of existence to find what we have lost. Meditate, and contemplate, over your very being and God shall reveal himself to you. Truth is now gone, but born is something greater. I see beauty, and never will I return.

The Hierarchy of Being

Previous discourse has laid us with sufficient foundations to construct once again the throne of my philosophy, what will be presented will not be entirely new material as such but will hopefully be a unified and complete account of my current understand of the nature of reality and its relation to the supreme Divinity. What is presented below is a hierarchy of being:

I will first further elucidate upon my understanding behind this hierarchy. The 'Form' and 'Singularity' here symbolise any abstract elements of existence, we could consider their archetypes themselves but this would add an ontological characteristic already present in the stages of 'Conception'. The gap between Singularity and Soul denotes any stages of being in the hierarchy below the absolute totality of the self. There is a division between the self and God in the conceivable and inconceivable realms, this division should be self explanatory at this stage. The hierarchy has been kept as simple as possible to provide a platform of common understanding and belief; the stages of the hierarchy in particular are not of importance here when we are primarily concerned with the highest state and essence of existence which is pure awareness.

What I am presenting here is a refined argument on the nature of God. What I shall expound here is primarily a metaphysical approach, I in fact hold the aesthetic approach to be most powerful as it resounds strongest with a perennial yearning in the innermost sanctum of the heart. I shall leave that approach for a later date, however, for as of yet their is an insufficient dialogue on aesthetic and spiritual sensibilities.

Conception is the mechanism by which we acquaint ourselves with the higher orders of being innate to the inner cosmos as moulded by the Will. My philosophy since its inception has rested upon awareness as being absolute, as being the transcendental essence of the soul and more so the fundamental essence of being. The subtlety of self-awareness is in being aware of conception; this leads directly onto the Fundamental Ontology in which we can construct the singularity of conception itself.

We have spoken before of 'existence' as being a human category of understanding, it is for this reason that I do not like to speak of the existence of God for that would be to limit him, as would describing God as being limit him. The notion of God is primitive and naive, it is perhaps the most basic belief of the human mind there is manifested in multiple dimensions, God is the ideal of something greater. If we study history we see that that humans have always been drawn to that which is greater and associated divinity with it. Our ancestors worshiped the stars and viewed their movements as portraying a cosmic order which would predict the fate of ourselves. Mathematicians held an ideal of abstraction, and certain cults such as the Pythagorean's even worshiped it. Philosophers have been drawn to an ideal of wisdom, and the spiritual seekers to the good. Even secular scientists will hold the material cosmos to be the greater, and hold a reverence and awe for it. What makes this awe become religiosity is a relevance to the human self, for example if we view the universe to be ordered we perceive an element and underlying essence of beauty within it, which may lead to pantheism. The concept of God is impersonal in describing that which lies beyond the self, yet at the same time it is absolutely personal, for viewing God as greater relates him to the human self by placing his perception within the faculty of understanding. Thus we can summarise the argument in two stages, one of a transcendent vision in perceiving a greater unity, and the other in relating this unity to the human self. That the greater is a unity and a whole stems from our understanding of the singularity-form archetypes and my system of metaphysics that I have presented within my philosophy. That God must be of a personal connection follows from my view on awareness as constituting the irreducible stratum of being.

Then what follows is that we can perceive of God. In this he is greater, more so he is the source of our being, of being itself, he is the absolute totality, he encompasses the ideals of beauty and goodness which occupy the highest levels of existence in the human field of understanding by virtue of ontology, he is related to the human self through perception and most importantly he is inconceivable. The soul is the singularity of being and the highest conceivable order of existence, it is the self. But then we come to a problem in that any argument made in the realm of the soul does not transcend its essence. This was something I slightly overlooked in my previous article on God, I believe that the notion of transcendent understanding and being was intrinsically placed within my discourse. I was mistaken in believing that it was ontology that was the root of my argument, when it was reflection. The soul is a reflection of God, the Will a reflection of the Divine Will, being a reflection of His being. This is to say nothing new, these are recurring themes, more so the foundation of my philosophy, but they are also the foundation of any argument in understanding God.

All this follows naturally, the metaphysical, epistemological essence, any subtlety, any philosophical, theological or spiritual aspect of understanding Divinity will all follow in my philosophy, if there truly is something greater than the self. Let all of human history, let your perception of truth, goodness and beauty in this world, let your very being in reading this article, be 'proof' that there is. I apologise if the reader was expecting a more thorough and explanatory 'argument' for God, if this is the case then I encourage them to study my previous work. I have stated before, that I heavily dislike speak of 'proving' God, or even 'arguing' for his existence or being - I only use these words due to necessity. There is nothing to prove, and there is nothing to argue. God is, he is in every capacity and dimension, interpenetrating every fabric of reality. If you want proof, look at your own being. In fact it is awareness of our own being that is the birthplace of spirituality and religion. The Godhead is the final singularity, it is the final unity and completion of my philosophy, the Divine Throne.

I conclude this article with the final subtlety, we speak of the Soul as being the singularity of the self, but what if we consider the Soul to be a form? Form reflects singularity, but in this case it is more than form being reflected, it is the totality of all conceivable being that is. Just as we generalise upon conception to discover the Fundamental Ontology, we can consider the dual notion of conception which is perception, and the ontological foundation of perception which is reflection and generalise upon this notion; this places reflection as an ontological necessity of the hierarchy of existence, its ordination at each state should imply reflection at the highest stage.

Addendum

I present here a more abstract discourse into the Being of God, which ties in more complex ideas from my previous discussions.

Awareness transcends all boundaries of perception, and produces a greater structure from that which is given to it. The soul as being defined as the totality of the self, and thus the greatest conceivable structure, is pure awareness. We could formulate our conception of God equivalently by considering the singularity of awareness. This is not to formulate a perception of the Godhead outright, a singularity of awareness is not to produce anything greater just as awareness of awareness is no more than awareness itself. Using the subtlety of reflection we can argue for some greater being, what should be a singularity awareness. I say 'should be' in a way to separate ourselves from the confines of understanding, as all conceivable structure obeys the singularity-form archetypes of understanding should we not ought there to be a 'singularity of awareness' which obeys the same order of reality and being as does everything else. This argument in the knowable realm is a reflection of its nature in the higher realms, and ultimately the argument is a reflection of the pure Being of God.

Ontological Logic on account of its essence and foundation transcends its being in the knowable realm; ontological logic is founded upon any Ontological Circle which can be considered to be an indivisible element and plane of existence, this is to say that Ontological Logic is founded upon the same premises as all realms above and below it, and so it transcends its place in the hierarchy to take seat in a domain of pure intuition which relies only upon awareness itself. This explains how we are even able to speak of God in a meaningful capacity, because the 'concepts' of understanding can relate directly to the unspeakable truths through reflection.

It is clear that God is One, by virtue of singularity itself. To speak of multiple of God's or of a God of God is nonsensical, we cannot conceive of God and thus we cannot place his conception within the realm of our understanding to discuss his nature of being or manifestation. My philosophy, and more strongly I would argue all philosophy and all knowledge itself is examination of the self. I have done no more than this, by observing the microcosm, the universe of cosmic imagination and the crucible of dreams, the Earth in its splendor adorned amongst a perfect order of the heavens sculpted by beauty, the constellation of thought and a manifold of understanding formed by truth, I have born witness my dominion, and by reflection perceived the absolute Divinity in exaltation infinite, and magnificence manifest.