Article in this format PDF is here
or here
or here
Surin S.Yu.
Proof
of the existence of God
12. If I have told you about earthly things , and
you do not believe, -
How will you believe if I tell you about
heavenly things ?
(The Gospel from John 3:12)
Annotation
Based on the new system of metaphysical categories
developed by the author in his work “Metaphysics of the Certain” [1], an
analysis of the concept of God as the ultimate existence is made.
The necessity of
a source of existence of something as the MEANING of a timeless and spaceless
contradiction of the impossibility of absolute Nothingness is shown .
Space
and time are presented as forms of interpretation of existence.
The
limitations of evidence based on the traditional metaphysics of being and
existence are shown.
An
analysis of basic Christian ideas as a representation of the form of the
ultimate existing MEANING is carried out.
1. Formulating the ultimate
question
As we embark on this
stated goal, we must remember all the numerous and unsuccessful attempts to
prove the existence of God over the past thousand years. What doomed them to
failure?
The question is: what
(or who) is God , what is the Beginning of all beginnings, Who created the
Creator? etc.
All these questions
implicitly posited God as a kind of object of study, placing Him in a series of
cause-and-effect relationships, thereby determining His place in our space and
time.
God, intuitively, with
his attributes in developed religions, was considered to be supra-spatial and
timeless, which led to the collapse of the evidence.
Therefore, it is
necessary to find an extreme formulation of the question that avoids such
implicit assumptions.
And first, the
question shouldn't include the word "God," which makes Him the
subject or object of analysis. In fact, we don't yet understand its meaning; we
don't know whether the attributes of any subject or object can be attached to
Him.
What is there to talk
about then?
Secondly, there
remains only one thing: to talk about existence. About reliable existence. And
the most reliable thing for a person can only be his own existence. The
forgotten " cogito"
arises. ergo sum » (I think, therefore I am), which again
implicitly imposes upon the study the subject of existence, our self.
This doesn't
immediately address our goal, as it presupposes the attributes of the
"I"—thinking and existing. Existence should not be a property or
attribute, but the initial source of inquiry, and, if possible, neither
predicate nor subject.
But the grammar of
language itself does not provide the appropriate tools for correctly expressing
such an existence. Therefore, we will speak of the existence of anything at
all, avoiding reference to our "I," which, oddly enough, is no
clearer than the word "God."
What can we ask about
existence in general? "Where from?" and "How?" are
inappropriate, for the same reason of spatiotemporal relations. Only one
question remains: "Why?" What should this "why" point to?
Logic leaves us with only one thing: the complete opposition to existence in
general, absolute Nothingness. Not emptiness; emptiness is the absence of
something , and that is not Nothingness.
To point to Nothing as
the ultimate abstraction akin to the abstractness of existence in general.
So, we get the
question as formulated by Martin Heidegger.
"Why is there anything at
all, and not absolute Nothingness?"
“Something” and “is”
should be thought of not as a subject and a predicate, but as synonyms of
existence in general, outside of the subject-object representation!
2. What can be proven about
ultimate existence?
Such a beginning leads
to the fact that the question itself is an inevitable contradiction.
If absolute
Nothingness is realized or "is," then it is no longer Nothingness,
but Something realized. The question itself, by its very formulation , provides
its own answer: absolute Nothingness is impossible.
Therefore, existence is necessary because absolute Nothing is possible!!
Or, in religious
terminology , God exists because He cannot not exist. God is no longer
omnipotent, but is limited by this impossibility of His Non-Existence.
Existence in general,
or that which truly exists (outside of space and time, otherwise Eternity) ,
must necessarily, the reverse side of the impossibility of absolute
Nothingness, be this very contradiction. A contradiction with the certainty
realized here and now by our thinking. That which we call the reflection of
self-consciousness, and this is both subject and object, and neither one nor
the other, equally and simultaneously. Ultimate existence manifests itself as MEANING,
INTERPRETATION, INTERPRETATION, MEMORY (but not of temporal sequence) of itself
in another from itself (the impossibility of Nothingness), eliminated in this
interpretation! In my work "The Metaphysics of the Certain" [1] (MD
1996) I called this "forgetting in remembrance."
The impossibility of
Nothingness (existence as the action of this interpretation), eliminated from
interpretations, is revealed by the necessity of meanings or their
significance. Or by the compulsion to live.
The formal side of
MEANING is CONTRADICTION; its substantive side is TRAGEDY — the impossibility of
one's own Non-Existence, one's own limitations by this constraint. The
contradiction and tragedy of MEANING are one , like a kind of super-indexical
(see below), where form and content are unimaginable and inconceivable without
each other.
THE TRAGEDY OF MEANING
drives the separation of form and content in all possible interpretations of
existence, trying to somehow remove the compulsion to exist in the finitude of
meanings (their death) of separated form and content – action and its
representation as accomplished in action.
This is how the
representation of MEANING arises in various separated forms of existence.
Speaking in our
language of subject-object relations, the existence of anything at all must
have the “nature” of our consciousness.
But these aren't our
verbally accentuated meanings and interpretations; they are also their potential to be meanings , i.e., the
very forms of interpretation of ultimate existence. Forms that are their own
content—this is how they can be interpreted in our language. Our logical forms
of the necessity of conclusion (action) come closest to them, outside of their
symbolic or verbal designation. This is what is expressed in religious language
in the maxim, "and he said, let there be light, and there was light."
Nothing and … are impossible— Existence became (without any "and,"
since we are not yet talking about time and sequence)!
“What is said”
(meaning) and “what is realized” (reality) are inseparable in ultimate
existence.
This is the fundamental difference from our consciousness.
Our consciousness and its forms of interpreting existence—time and space (MD [1])—are a partial reflection of this reality. The "ultimately existing " may have many other forms inaccessible to our expression in our senses.
Our self (consciousness) and our body (material world) point to two heteronomous forms (MD [1]) of interpretation of our existence in our world, time and space.
“I” (time) speaks of the externality of the foundations of existence to itself, of the absolute and unattainable Nothing.
The “body” (space) or material world interprets this impossibility of Nothing as the absence of anything in the world, i.e., emptiness or a receptacle for Something existing, demonstrating this impossibility by the necessity of the laws by which Something existing in our world manifests itself.
And this is in fact the “ultimately existing” that we call God.
A) Heteronomous forms of interpretation of existence and subjectivity
Now let's talk about
these two heteronomous forms of interpretation of existence, about time and
space, since only they connect us with God.
These two forms must
represent (MD [1]) in their content the timeless contradiction of our ultimate question.
Because it is precisely this contradiction that is the active force of their
meaning, i.e. their MEANING.
The impossibility of
absolute Nothingness is necessarily represented in their content by the
finiteness of the existence interpreted in them, the beginning and the end, the
Birth of the existing, and the Death of the existing - a demonstration of the
elimination (finitude, death) of one heteronomous form in the content of
another.
In "The
Metaphysics of Certainty" [1], I call these forms of interpreting
existence as a certain significance (here a connection arises between form and
its content, that division of form and content occurs that distinguishes us from
the "ultimately existing"), heteronomous forms. Since the affirmation
of one occurs through the displacement from content (or oblivion) of the other.
Time, in its
substantive part, is conceived as duration. Space (extension) is represented as
a single (point-like) entity, as a certain perception.
That which separates
form and content, not separated in the ultimate existence , acts as a certain
“I - Logos” - the action of these interpretations in addition to their content,
the form of subject and object, having the same source in the ultimate
existence.
And the eliminated
action of a divided interpretation, connecting form with its content, is
conceived as Something eliminated in the content of the interpretation. Its
elimination in interpretations reveals the significance of everything that
exists in the world. In religious interpretation, this is the eliminated
presence of God, which is called the Holy Spirit. Therefore, God is silent (he
withdrew after the creation of the world), and therefore one cannot see God
without dying, since His manifestation deprives the significance of existence.
B) The emergence of content
Thus, from pure form,
without the living "I-Logos," eliminated in content as the action of
interpretations, no content can arise. No world, no universe, not even as a
singularity, a Big Bang, a fluctuation, etc., can arise and exist.
The attempt of Russell
and Whitehead to derive from purely logical forms the primitive content that 1
+ 1 = 2, stretched over hundreds of pages of Principia Mathematica, turned out
to be unsuccessful , bearing in mind that in their theory of types the axiom of
reducibility arose.
Ramsey's alternative idea, that complete chaos
is impossible in multiple structures, i.e., that some meaningful structure
always emerges, explains nothing in our hypothesis, but merely establishes the
presence of some content always and everywhere, rather than its derivation from
form. That is, some implicit, meaningful "I-Logos" is always and
everywhere present, something that connects the multiple world with the
ultimate existence .
No content of form is
possible without this “ I-Logos”, nothing can exist as something represented in
the world without Someone who is aware of this representation.
C)
Spatial
interpretation of existence
And this “I am Logos”
must be one and the same for everything that exists in multiple ways, since the
very multiplicity in space acts as the unity of what is presented.
And this means nothing
other than that all those representing the “I” in the world must have one
meaningful standard (measure) of interpretations of the content of “time” in
spatial extent, and vice versa.
This measure is a
certain speed (a way of interpreting the duration of time through spatial
extent), which we call the speed of light.
But we have hastened
with the word “light”, since the necessity of the constancy of a certain speed
for all representatives of “ I” is not only an empirical fact, but also a
logical consequence of the interpretations of “time” and “space”.
In 1998, Christian
Marchal [2 ] showed that the Lorentz transformation is derived directly from
the principle of relativity and the symmetries of transformations without
postulating the constancy of the speed of light. The constancy of a certain
speed for all observing selves is a consequence of the transitivity of linear
transformations.
That is, all
relativistic effects can be justified from purely logical premises, without
invoking the "objectivity" of the world's physical properties. I note
that time and space appear here not as forms, but as their substantive
interpretations, just like logical forms.
The meaning of the
constancy of a certain velocity for all "selves" lies not in the
"objective" properties of the electromagnetic field, but in the fact
that each observer in different inertial frames of reference must interpret
time as duration in the same way. The physical expression of this velocity, its
spatial interpretation, is a property of the electromagnetic field in our
world. Where the observing "selves" become simply observers in an
inertial frame of reference (the condition of equivalence for all
"selves" in the space of the container). Hence the word
"light." And the equivalence of interpreting time as duration is
manifested by the fact that the proper time of all observers is no different
from the proper time of everyone else.
I wrote about this in
more detail in my work “The Second Death of Schrödinger’s Cat or the Paradox of
Simultaneity in Special Relativity” (2019) [3].
D) Temporal interpretation of existence
When space begins to
be interpreted through temporal perception (another assertion of heteronomous
forms), which is less clear and more difficult to imagine, objects within it
lose the certainty of spatial perception (coordinates), and the well-known
quantum uncertainty of the microworld emerges. Consequently, the randomness of
their perception in quantum experiments arises.
Instead of the point
of the object’s position, a wave function arises, the collapse of which, upon
measurement (the action of the measuring “I” as a form of time), instantly
occurs throughout the entire infinite space.
Both the relativistic
world and quantum reality have the same origin in heteronomous forms (time and
space) of interpretations of existence.
I focused on these
supposedly physical particulars because they are fundamental structures
reflecting the essence of time and space as forms of interpreting existence in
general. Our world itself speaks in these forms of the ultimate existent ,
confirming our research.
E) Source of the world Subject
But most importantly,
behind all of this stands the "I - Logos" as the Source (or cause),
filling the forms of time and space with their content in our interpretations
of existence. The Source, giving birth to the multiplicity and unity of all
that exists.
This “I – Logos” is called in
religious language that which is created in us “in the image and likeness of
God,” and that which in our world is known as - “All things came into being
through Him, and without Him nothing came into being that came into being”
(Gospel of John 1:3).
Without this source,
no proof of ultimate existence, and no interpretation of It, is possible. The
very possibility of genuine proof testifies to this.
It is to Him or
through Him that we turn to the ultimate God.
In religious language
this is expressed in the following quote.
“ Jesus said to
him, ‘I am the way, the truth, and the life . No one
comes to the Father unless through Me. "
(John 14:6)
3
Critique of the proof of the ultimate existence
A)
The
limitations of scientific evidence
The first reaction of
someone with scientific prejudices would be: what kind of proof is this?! How
is it verified? Only by oneself!
Absolutely right. Any
scientific proof is inherently inapplicable to our ultimate question of
existence.
Let's consider the
form of mathematical (axiomatic) proof. A theorem is considered proven if its
content is logically deducible (demonstratively interpreted) from the accepted
axioms.
Axioms are removed
(oblivion of MD [1]) from the circle of what needs to be proven. They are
considered intuitively irrefutable. That is, no meaningful refutation can be
found for them in established practices (the language games of MD [1]), since
any supposed refutation renders these language games meaningless in our
practice. Recall what I wrote above—why God is silent. The revealed, eliminated
action of interpretations (also known as the basis) renders meaningless the
necessity of content, since its elimination from content, as its action, is
what gives meaning to the necessity of content in our language games.
In Bourbaki's
mathematical formalism, the ultimate intuitive concept is the empty set. They
attempt to derive all of mathematics from it. And this may be successful until
we ask about the empty set itself.
What is this? The
answer is a set that coincides with all its subsets. The last words
"coincidence" and "subsets" immediately and implicitly
bring in all non-empty sets, correspondences between their elements, and so
on—everything that needs to be deduced from an empty set. This is a formally
logical fallacy—the fallacy of a vicious circle in definition, a circulus in
definiendo. And it is necessarily ignored (oblivion-repression), otherwise one
would simply have to remain silent and withdraw, like God (see above).
But our ultimate
question presupposes precisely this identification of the eliminated basis of
action. Therefore, we have obtained it in the form of a contradiction.
Verbal interpretations
are represented epiphenomena of the actual interpretations themselves, what in
MD [1] are called indexicals—content that cannot be interpreted without its
demonstrative realization in our lives. Try interpreting
"significance" or "I" without meaningful words and the
interpreting self.
B)
Incorrectness
of formal logic
Your question is a
contradiction, and from a contradiction one can deduce any statement, both
false and true. – So might a formal logician object.
A formal objection can
be answered with a formal response.
1 The paradox of
material implication says that “anything” follows from a false or contradictory
statement, and we have based our study on a question.
2. Implication
presupposes the conditionality of the conclusion, "if..., then...".
In our case of the ultimate question, no alternative "if" is
appropriate; the abstraction of something ultimately existing is opposed to
only one thing—absolute Nothingness.
But I will not limit
myself to a formal reply, although that is sufficient.
Logical form as an
action is an indexical (MD [1]), its content cannot be understood without its
implementation.
What is a
contradiction as an act? It is when a statement, when interpreted in the same
form, leads to an opposite conclusion, excluding its basis as true.
Where is the indexical
here? In the negation – "not," "exception," etc.
The essence of
contradiction lies in the demonstration of this "not." The judgment
negates itself. It demonstrates the meaning of "not." It is
impossible to explain negation without demonstrating it in this explanation.
But in formalism, on
the pages of articles and books, we deal not with indexicals, but with their
representative representation of form in the words and signs of our scientific
"language games." In their symbolic expression in words and signs.
Thus interpreted, the
form places its content in the world of space and time in their substantive
part, in the world of objects and subjects, which excludes the posing of our
ultimate question about the existence of anything.
And it has nothing to
do with our research .
The contradiction, as
an indexical, of the ultimate question of existence is the action that gives
meaning to my subsequent statements.
We cannot reject it as
false not only for formal reasons, but also because "true" and
"false" are relationships in the time and space of our world. The
relationship between subjects and objects in the world.
In the ultimate
existence , where what is said (this is a forced euphemism) and what is
realized are inseparable, there is no place for “true” and “false”, there is
place only for MEANINGS.
There's no room there
for the "meaningless"—absolute Nothingness is impossible; everything
has meaning there. Because everything is realized even as an obvious
contradiction.
C)
The essence of our proof
The essence of our proof
is that it is based on an analysis of our own reflection on existence, without
reference to the properties of our "I." This was stated from the very
beginning.
The reflection of
consciousness was transferred to the ultimate question of existence and was
considered as an irreconcilable contradiction.
The validity of this
consideration is identical to the validity of our existence for ourselves ,
realized by us and in us here and now. A more solid foundation does not exist.
Even proofs based on mathematical axiomatics are weaker (see above).
But this "here
and now" emerges as the weakest point of the proof if we remain committed
to old metaphysical notions of the world and being. If we use the traditional
categories of "form," "content," "space," and "time,"
they immediately return our ultimate question to the realm of subject-object
relations: space as the container of what exists in being and time as its
history, demonstrated by the mutability of being, its movement in relation to
the past and future. And here, "time" remains the most obscure
concept since the time of Aristotle and St. Augustine, as it remains today.
To overcome this
difficulty, I succeeded in “The Metaphysics of the Certain” [1] in creating a
new system of metaphysical categories and concepts based not on the
representation of being in its being, but on the reflection of existence
itself.
Time and space became heteronomous
forms of interpretation of existence, indexical and representative statements
appeared, being and essence became derivative playful concepts of
interpretation of existence in general, memory and oblivion became central
metaphysical categories, etc.
It is precisely in this system of metaphysical categories, created
by me, that the proof of God's existence acquires the necessity of inference .
The very process of inference is demonstrated both on these pages and in the
pages of "The Metaphysics of the Certain" [1]. It cannot be
formalized correctly, like mathematical proofs, but it can be demonstrated.
Because my conclusion
itself bears the essence of an indexical. An indexical, just like
"I," "this," "not"... It cannot be correctly
explained without demonstrating its living action in this explanation.
D) What has been proven
The
"beginning" (source) of ultimate existence is not something presently
existing (old metaphysics), but the impossibility of absolute Nothingness, the
impossibility of Non-Existence in general. Not presence, but the impossibility
of absence.
The driving force of
this ultimate existence is the contradiction that arises from this
impossibility, i.e., what in our old tradition we call consciousness.
This contradiction has
the character of MEANING, representing itself in all possible forms of
existence.
In our forms of space
and time, a separation of content and form occurs, as the subjectivity of the
presence of a certain "I-Logos." Being (time) emerges in its
representative being (space). Time and space in being become the content of
existence, its integral attributes.
The essence of the
subjectivity of the "I-Logos" is the same reflection of the
self-awareness of our "I." Otherwise, we would know nothing about it,
even in the most abstract sense.
No inert or material
“beginning” can be the basis for the ultimate existing.
Life and Meaning
“emerge” at once, and “after” (we have to use these euphemisms - our time does
not exist yet) being and what exists in it.
Which is completely at
odds with the metaphysical foundations of our self’s existence.
E) What prevents us from accepting this evidence?
Our self is the fruit
of the linguistic games of the traditional metaphysics of Being and Existence.
But we shouldn't think
of metaphysics as something invented during the cataloging of Aristotle's
works. Metaphysics is the content of the fundamental meanings of the form of
our subjectivity in his being (or practice). And this existed before Aristotle,
from time immemorial, and continues to exist after him.
The deepest meaning of
our subjectivity is the cause-and-effect relationship between the world of the
represented being (object) and the conscious self (subject). And it seems that
this form, in these senses, is impossible for a person to transcend. Especially
in the part we are accustomed to calling objective reality.
Then meanings arise
(not necessarily verbally expressed) that motivate a person to continue life
and activity for its sake, or to stop it.
They can be conscious
or unconscious (instinct) in nature. They can be of pleasure and pain. They can
be threats and rescues.
Awareness of their
integrity can change their hierarchy , displacing some and replacing them with
others.
Let us call this a
change in the types of subjectivity of our form of existence.
These types are formed
in language games (MD [1]).
The content of these
games cannot be reliably deduced from the ultimate existence of God, since
identifying Him (as an act of interpretation) would simply render them
meaningless. Therefore, the word "faith" arises in relation to them.
Faith isn't just
something that lacks sufficient grounds for its own justification by doubters
and nonbelievers. Faith is what shapes the types of subjectivity in our games
of existence.
He forms them, lives
by them, and, sooner or later, in the syntax of language games (in their
reflexive criticism) he tries to reveal the meaning of the action of their
interpretations, which is eliminated in the content of beliefs - that meaning,
by eliminating which beliefs are held as worthy of true recognition.
As a result, the
syntax (MD [1]) of language games leads to a change in types of subjectivity.
Nietzsche – the devaluation of higher values.
Further, we will not
talk about the necessity, provability, or content of beliefs; this is
impossible; the revealed necessity devalues them as reliable views.
The discussion will
focus on how the ultimately existing represents (MD [1]) itself in the basic
views of faith using Christianity as an example.
Why is this necessary?
Since the ultimately
existing , as has been proven, bears the essence (a forced euphemism) of the
action of living MEANING, then it, POSSIBLY, in the representations of itself
as a semantic form, “speaks” to us in our language games through that “I –
Logos”, akin to our forms of interpretation of existence – forms of time and space.
Here are the
foundations of all religiosity.
4
Christianity as a language game
A)
Trinity
The triune structure
of the ultimate existing God the Father has already been expressed earlier in
my proof.
God the Father as the
MEANING Himself, which inevitably arises and is present everywhere.
"I am the
Logos," also known as God the Son, who divides the forms of eternal
MEANING into our playful concepts of "form" (space and time) and
"content" (the multiple world). He gives birth to the form of subjectivity
of existence in its interpretations—being and essence (space), cause and effect
(time), subject and object (consciousness).
The Holy Spirit as the
eliminated meaning of the action of interpretations of born forms, that which
connects being and the existing, unites the measure of time into a single flow
of the history of being, determines the unity of consciousness of our “I” in
the multiplicity of conscious objects, both fictional and real.
In the language of
traditional metaphysics of being and existence, the same can be expressed as
follows.
To be conscious of the one source of being, God or man - and this is in
us that which is created in the image and likeness of God - one must:
1)
to feel it as the beginning of
existence (God the Father), that “I am”
2)
that awareness (reflection in
Logos, in the word) of this “beginning” has a direct relation to my Self, to my
awareness “I am” (God the Son), and
3)
and that the understanding of this
unity (the beginning and I) is Their connecting action (Being) inseparable from
them, but all the time eluding consideration (God the Holy Spirit).
This is nothing other
than a description of the reflection of our self-awareness as existing
"selves" in this world. That form of existence that gives birth to
the "I am Logos"—through Him, all things came into being, and without
Him, nothing came into being that came into being. And in this Logos itself,
there is the same form as our "I," which is why I write "I am
Logos."
Father, Son and Spirit
are not the generic or cause-and-effect relationships expressed in these
familiar words, but the logical structures discussed above, expressed in
mythological images.
The Trinity of this
structure is not a quantitative category; God cannot be counted even once,
since counting places Him in our space and turns Him into an idol, and places
us who count outside of Him, i.e. outside of our own existence, which is
impossible in our world.
This is the unity of
three moments of our analysis, not God Himself, beyond time and space, beyond
counting. Unity with Itself in the Eternity of MEANING, as one is our Self and
its awareness of itself as this Self existing. One without the other is simply
unthinkable; there is no such way of thinking or existing—this is His image and
likeness within us.
This structure of reflection of our self-consciousness, willingly or
unwillingly, is reflected not only in the Toledot of the Torah - “the Gods (the
discrepancy between the singular and the plural) created heaven and earth”,
“and the Spirit of God moved over the face of the waters”, “the Gods said” - to
whom, to themselves?
But the Hindus also have Trimurti.
In the Quran - Allah, the Mother of the Book, the Spirit (Quran,
17:85).
In the theologies and cosmogonies of the Greeks - chaos, theos, cosmos.
Everywhere where they more or less deeply try to understand what
existence is in general.
Therefore, when you speak about the One God (Tawhid for Muslims and the
unity of Jews, for whom God is a counted idol), you implicitly mean this triune
structure (the Holy Trinity) of the existence of anything at all.
The unity of God is the “here and now” created unity of awareness of
the Being of anything, identical with it (with Him).
B)
The
Incarnation and Atoning Sacrifice of Christ
The most distinctive feature
of the God I have proven here is His limitation by the impossibility of His own
Non-Existence; absolute Nothing is impossible.
God is not omnipotent,
He cannot not exist. He is forced to live.
On the other hand,
MEANING, like His very possibility of MEANING , outside of our time and space,
is one and the same, presupposing the existence of everything possible. His
omnipotence.
And this is the very
same contradiction of the impossibility of Nothingness as the source of the
ultimate God. This contradiction can be interpreted as the eternal tragedy of
MEANING.
And it must be
resolved in the creation of a world or worlds of all possible existing
REFERENCE.
In this world, or
worlds, the Ultimately existing God, speaking in the language of Hegel, removes
his contradiction in the Death of something existing, but still not in absolute
Nothingness.
This something existing
and prepared for Death must have the same form of subjectivity (finitude) of
existence as the “I – Logos”, but giving place in its being to Death, i.e.
MEANING must become human in the fullness of human life and in his tragedy of
death.
Why should God become
human in one person, and not in all of humanity? Moreover, the triune form of
reflection of MEANING lives everywhere and always in us and by us.
The essence of the
answer lies in that eternal contradiction of the ultimate existence, which we
called TRAGEDY above. It is one and the same contradiction.
“It’s not scary for
everyone to die together” is not only a psychological aspect of shared
responsibility, it is an expression of the discrepancy between the multiplicity
of what exists in the world and the point perception of the form of existence
of this multiplicity as the form of “I”.
Humanity cannot
contain TRAGEDY, tragedy is contained within man.
God became man, having
contained all of Himself in man as the tragedy of His own ultimate existence.
There is no blessed
and eternal God; such a God does not need anything.
There is something
that exists to the extreme in the aspect of the tragedy of its contradiction of
the impossibility of absolute Nothing.
And this tragedy
removes the need for any theodicy. An idol can be justified. God does not
exist. His tragedy is a form of our tragedy of mortality (sinfulness), without which
we do not exist and could not exist.
Why Jesus Christ, why
did the incarnation take place at that time and place? It's pointless to ask.
The question only makes sense for the ultimate God.
God is limited by his
death in the impossibility of Nothingness. This is a compulsion to exist.
Violence as the law of the world's existence.
In order to overcome this limitation
of the violence of existence and to realize himself as the Absolute, not torn
apart by this contradiction-tragedy, God must die as a man, to realize his
tragic Nothingness in time and space, there is no other way.
This is why we were created as His
image and likeness - in the structure of our self-awareness as the self that
exists “here and now”.
The resolution to this will be, or
should be, the Resurrection and Eternal life of new worlds in a different basis
of the existence of MEANING, without this contradiction that limits God with
the impossibility of absolute Nothingness, no longer in time, but in Eternity.
It is impossible to justify the
necessity of this, it can only be implemented.
We will be saved because God will
live forever without His contradiction in Eternity.
Our salvation is more about God than
about ourselves.
C)
Personal
salvation
What is our salvation?
What are the foundations for our salvation? How do they arise from
representations of the ultimate MEANING in the contents of our lives?
The first question is
clear.
Salvation lies in
living forever, not just for a very, very long time, but immortally, so that
neither we ourselves nor the supremely existing God Himself can take our life.
And so that life excludes any meaningful tragic aspect for us.
And this means only
one thing: the tragic aspect of MEANING must be eliminated, and this
elimination is linked to our salvation. Consequently, the separateness of the
form of existence of our "I" and its representative content must be
changed, in accordance with the new quality of the ultimate MEANING.
What this means cannot
be said or conceived, because such thinking immediately places us in new forms
of existence. Salvation is accomplished! But it is not yet.
But there is a clue.
“20. And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for
verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall
say unto this mountain, Remove hence to there: and it shall move: and nothing
shall be impossible unto you…”
(Matthew 17:20)
But this is nothing
other than the fusion of form and content within ourselves. That which was
originally the ultimately existing God.
This is not the
removal of the tragedy of MEANING, it is a change of places between us and God.
The incarnation of
Christ accomplished this.
It cannot be proven,
but it corresponds to the representation of the reflection of existence.
God became man, but
man did not become God.
There's only one thing
left: man-humanity must become God. The salvation of man without the salvation
of humanity is impossible, just as a point of perception is impossible without
the multifaceted space surrounding it. There will be nothing to perceive.
A person must change
their form of subjectivity, not their type, but the form of their
subject-object relationships with the world. This is what the above quote is
about.
How is this possible?
Through faith. But not through faith as agreement with something and acceptance
of something. But faith as a life practice that changes the type of
subjectivity of the "I" in both consciousness and actions.
The result of this
change should be a complete change in the form of our existence, denying the
current form and our life.
Another quote points
to this.
“25. And a great multitude went with him: and he turned and
said unto them,
26. If anyone comes to Me and does not hate his father
and mother, wife and children, brothers and sisters, yes, and his own life
also , he cannot be My disciple…”
(Luke 14:25,26)
From which it directly
follows that the initial and necessary intention towards Christ, the beginning
of the path to salvation, will not be love, but hatred for the most sacred
values of our earthly life - mother, father, children.
The goal of such
hatred, its meaning, will be our very lives. Those forms and types of self-subjectivity
that stand in the way of our salvation like an insurmountable wall of earthly
laws. This is not my opinion; these are the words of the Gospel's Christ.
Why are mother,
father, brothers, and children mentioned in the quote?
These are symbols of
motivating meanings for existence, reproducing our life in the established form
of subjectivity of the “I” and in its types.
An objection
immediately arises: didn’t Christ say “honor your father and mother” (Matthew
15 :4), isn’t this a contradiction?
No, he spoke this
either to the scribes, or to the rulers, or to the young Jewish man who wept,
not because of money, but because, according to Christ, observing this and
other commandments does not lead to salvation. That is, to people of the old
type of subjectivity, people of the commandments.
But to his disciples,
or to those who wanted to be them, people of the advancing type of
subjectivity, he said something completely different: “let the dead bury their
own dead” (Luke 9:60).
And so on for all
essential questions in all four canonical Gospels.
People of the old
type, without hatred for life itself, cannot be remade. It's useless to talk to
them about the new. Their motivations for life are obstacles to changing types
of subjectivity , and therefore to changing its form.
By being immersed in
them, these people are not on the path to salvation, not on the path to
changing the form of subjectivity.
D) The history of salvation as a history of changing types of
subjectivity of the “I”
The foundation of positive
motivation for life for all types of subjectivity of the "I" of our
form of existence (the relationship between subject and object) will be the
meanings of the basic categories — to
have, to receive, to obtain, to reproduce, to create. And the meanings of
all the concepts derived from them — love, sin, fear, pleasure, pride…
These are all positive
motivations, but the essence of the tragic contradiction of MEANING also
manifests itself in negative motivations: Thanatos, the death drive, constantly
repressed , tabooed as the impossibility of Nothingness, from people's social
lives.
And it is precisely
these things that push us toward hatred of life itself, according to the
words of Christ in the Gospel. It is precisely these things that point the way
to salvation.
This is represented in
the death of the humanized MEANING, not simply in dying, but in a shameful
execution, like a slap in the face of the life being abandoned. It's unclear
whether people executed Him, or whether He Himself orchestrated His execution
through second-hand means.
Indeed, a few hours
before, according to the Gospel of Matthew, Christ actually refused to do
anything to prevent the reprisal against himself.
“52. Then Jesus said to him, “Put your sword back into its
place, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword.
53. Or do you think that I cannot now pray to My Father, and
He will provide Me with more than twelve legions of angels?
(Matthew 26:52,53)
This is a voluntary
choice to die. What motivated Christ to do this? The original overcoming of the
compulsion to exist through MEANING through death in finite existence.
The tragedy of God is
in the impossibility of Death, the tragedy of man is in the impossibility of
eternal life.
And this isn't just a
result or a whim of my research; something similar was known in Ancient Greece,
before Christ. For this aspect of MEANING's existence could not help but be
represented in other philosophical analyses.
"The immortals are mortal, the mortals are immortal; by
each other's death they live, by each other's life they die."
(Heraclitus of Ephesus, 544 – 483 BC)
Although Heraclitus
the Dark may have meant something else, the form of MEANING, in its tragic
aspect, is represented in the quote's content in the same way. Incidentally,
according to legend, the death of Heraclitus the Dark is also a kind of
farewell spit on life.
The change in types of
subjectivity is expressed in a change in the interpretations of basic
categories, in a change in their hierarchical interdependence in the system of
positive motivations for life.
And the history of
mankind , with its passions, achievements and falls.
It doesn't interest us
here. It can be traced in terms of the representation of forms of MEANING in
the works of Hegel, Nietzsche, Spengler, and others.
We are interested in
one thing: how can a change in the hierarchies of our basic positive
motivations for life lead to a change in the very form of our subjectivity?
The answer is no,
unless we take into account the negative, repressed motivations for ending our
lives.
But even here the
answer cannot be positive; we are outside this new form, we cannot even imagine
it. We know only intuitively—about the movement of mountains by word.
The only thing we can do
is understand how the change in types of subjectivity can lead to the
destruction of our form of "I," i.e., to humanity's own death. To the
Sacrifice of humanity for the sake of new life, if that is possible.
Human history must end
with a conscious self-sacrifice for the sake of God's life. Not through a quiet
death, not through external catastrophe, but as the result of conscious
collective action by all of humanity as a single whole.
The incarnate God died
for all, all must die for God.
Here we see the
closure of the hermeneutic circle (MD [1]) either in the form of a tautology
(death, the impossibility of Nothing and everything anew or “the same” in its
indistinguishability, oblivion of everything), or in the form of a paradox,
which gives the opportunity for a new quality of MEANING in the reflexive
demonstration of MEANING for MEANING (there is no representation here, only
analogy).
The history of
humanity is the history of human sacrifice. And based on the development of our
civilization over the past 2,000 years, it's highly likely that what we now
call technology will play a key role in this.
Technology represents
humanity in its syntactically cashed (MD [1]) form and provides the basis for
the next reflexive circle of existence.
There is hope here,
but not elsewhere.
Technology will simply
kill humanity in the circle of tautologies, in the circle of the established
truth of the old metaphysical structure of being and existence, but it brings
hope in the circle of paradox.
Links
1 Surin S. Yu.
“Metaphysics of the Reliable” - 1996, Nizhny Novgorod, https://archive.org/details/MetaphysicsReliable
or https://zenodo.org/records/15664492
2 Marchal C.
"The decisive contribution of Henri Poincaré to the special theory of
relativity" - Institute of High Energy Physics, Protvino 1999,
C.Marchal-DES, ONERA-BR 72-92322 CHATILLON CEDEX-FRANCE
3 Surin S. Yu. “The Second Death of Schrödinger’s Cat or the Paradox of
Simultaneity in Special Relativity” - 2019, https://archive.org/details/20190812_20190812_0738
or https://zenodo.org/records/16414456
