Perceptions in the Face of Non-Perceptions

What is a non-perception? God is not that than which no greater can be conceived. He is greater still.

People talk a lot about absolutes in relation to absolute truth; but what's a lot truer is absolutes in relation to relative truth. Consider an absolute: God. Is he definable? No. Not even yourself is definable, nor myself, nor any self. A self by nature is a being without conception, as it is the conceiver.

Absolutes are truths because they are known absolutely. They must be known to know - that defines them as necessities. One cannot doubt the existence of these things, and because he thinks and cannot doubt them, they are. These include: self, God, other people. (Allow me to explain..)

The self is contorted by most computer scientists as being akin to a machine. There's an important reason why this is necessarily false - the machine has errors in situations outside its parameter control. One who programs a mechanical operative quickly understands its limited application: if the input is not listed in the program, the machine fails to operate. This is not so with man - there is seemingly, indeed not, not any limitation to his coordinative power, to his ability to function.

This is why man is an absolute, and also in conceptual. That is, the self of man. For the self must exist, yet can exist in scenarios it cannot conceive, making it inconceivable on whole.

This is the same with God, who must exist such that there can be unknowns and knowns in the face of one another. More simply stated, that we know there to exist things we have not known is to state that there exists another to perceive them - this is others and God. God, most importantly, as he is the creator of these perceptions which he lends us the gift to interpret, but others also as they are absolutes by our own convictions. If God provides us with truths we do not understand, one includes the empathy one has to other people, and so the relative certainty of their existence.

Now I say "relative certainty" - what do I mean by this? Well, certainty exists in two forms:
1. Certainty by way of undoubtable
2. Certainty by way of God

God's certainty is information to man that he expects us to recognize and which we understand as true. Something like - "I will remain in my chair over the course of the next five seconds" is a doubtable thing. But you know it because God has granted you the form of that chair and the form of yourself.

What is a form?

Forms are the things God creates. Everything one sees and feels and hears and touches - these are the forms of God interpreted into your own internal language. Your language recognizes these things as being of various sorts - but each is the function of something you did not create, for you are not yet a creator of forms, except those as related to God's.

Forms are complicated to explain because they are relative truths. One knows a form and knows its antithesis, but only as they relate to him. One can say: "there is the color red on the wall" - but this means nothing to the man who thinks it blue. Any statement made by another is only true insofar as one has already interpreted it to be so. Take another example: West Point is a college school. Any who disagree do so by way of their own language, or by their different outlook on the world. Perhaps one man sees West Point as a prison, another as a military camp, another as a building with no additional properties. In any case, anything one tells another is transferred from one language into another, by necessity, as our internal languages all differ from one another, and so in an inexplicable way they communicate without absolute truth - but that they do so is true absolutely.

Consider another example: your mother wear's high heels. Let's say I took this example as something you said to me. Well my mother wears many types of shoes. In any case that you saw a shoe she wore and I did not, it is impossible for me to verify that she wears this shoe. So instead I say: "well alright, she wears high heels", and then think of a different sort of shoe - because whenever I think of something it is processed in my language. Perhaps the shoe that comes to my mind is a pink stiletto - but he had referred to a heeled boot. Now we are speaking of different things, despite our having come to an understanding. This is because the form "high heels" transfers over many different types of shoe. It is a form, but a property of many different forms. It is contained within the forms of many other shoes that share particular similarities, but the form itself is of God - interpreted by each man differently, but in a way similar enough to permit communication. The communication finds some common ground from its source, but does not complete this ground as they can only near the perfection of that form - the true existence there - instead, they make partial estimations with their imperfect decoding of God's forms. That communication is possible, even in its fallibleness, is evidence that the forms come from one source, rather than in the minds of each of many sources. They are forms decoded by many sources, but originating from one point, such that communication may be permissible to some limitation.

Never before conceived is the form itself, for even God works from forms. Nothing is ex nihilo, and likewise all must come from absolutes. If it is a form from the mind of God - being from a mind it must be relative. God too works from a decoding of absolute forms. These are manifested imperfectly - a perfect circle, the form, is not anywhere seen in nature nor is it creditable to God or man - but their essence remains despite the imperfections. This is how things come to be - an interpretation of absolutes. When man creates art or buildings or skyscrapers or ceilings - each works from the raw material of forms, though translated first by God, as man is yet too limited to create forms of the nearness of God's. (nearness to the absolute form; vivid, "real") These absolutes can never be attained, but they can be neared like an asymptote, and God's power allows him to better do so than man.

Consider that all men must have derived from the same source. How do we know this? Well, we all share in common the form "man." This form is an absolute. Despite the relative truth of its interoperation, there remains the similarity of the form in the minds of all people, and communicably so. The "self" means different things to different people, but it shares the notable similarities that are defined by the absolute it branches from. Each can never know himself fully - but he can approach thereto as an asymptote.

Consider that man must be derived from the same source by nature of his communication. Any thing that hears or speaks the "same language" means multiple languages but with something in common. This common source is unidentifiable, but there it remains - the form. Man must have the similarity of being able to interpret this form, which highlights his similarity to other men. Further, by being able to deduce this form, he must read it the same as do other men. He comes from the same source in that he perceives the same form - he comes from an absolute universe of absolutes, as there he is able to draw near and study his external natures.

These are the most important elements of non-perceptions in the face of perceptions: their recognition despite their non-perceivability.They are the perceivers, the conceivers - and who can define the act of perception or conception? But there they remain, as evidenced certainly and deductively by their indomitability in the face of conceiving and perceiving.

What holds in store the secret to man's ambitions? Does he not strive to be like God? And what does this mean? It means, simply, that he strives for nearness to the forms - the absolutes - such that his existence and language may become more absolutely real. This is purpose - progression - though the end is undefined as it is defined by redefinition.

Now how does man know which steps to take to draw near to the forms? The answer is simple: he has logically deduced them and so realizes the end point, despite his inability to conceive it. Further, with a being of more power: God, to lead us in the correct manner, it becomes a fully manageable task that we are destined to pursue. This is why man is incapable of choosing a life of stagnation - of enjoying the comforts of the present and nothing more, while still feeling purposed in himself. The Dionysian man, though as saved by God as the Apollonian, is forever less happy, because he focuses on the happiness of a defined end.

Now what does this mean for the rest of us: what is its application? Well the answer is clear-cut: it shows the way in which man can progress despite his inexplicability to do so. It is the deducible proof that despite the thinking man's despair who wishes to know all things - all things which can never be known - there is a happiness, eternal progression, that can always be strived for in the face of unhappiness or toil. It shows the Dionysian man the escape from his constant drowning in sorrows of living in his make-believe existence of supposed comfort. It adds to the light of Christ within us that leads us to the path of God, which he has strengthened our lives for the purpose of accomplishing. It adds the immense opportunism and optimism to any life willing to seek the comforts of God.

There is immense joy to be had in following a progressive pattern - more joy than is conceivable at any point.

Now, is God infinite? An infinite approach to the asymptote, yes, perhaps - but infinite he is not by virtue of the limited forms. Indeed, there is no infinite being nor could there be, but God is great and mighty to save.

Consider that all things work in-tune with this God in a beautiful way. Our whole world existence is defined by a confusing array of truths we cannot understand and barely have recognition of, but which are fascinatingly understood in a way that cannot be denied. God provides a plan too complex to reason, but too obviously correct to ever be strayed from - for the faithful in heart. Only those who desire stagnation deny his benefits. Indeed, every man who wishes something more is found in God, for his heart is already there as a being who from within his bosom acknowledges that his eternal progress means something more to him than the temporal limitations at his heels.

This is the test of time: does man follow God or himself? Each leads to a happy end, provided hisself doesn't lose track of the goodness and stray to the desiring of a course of evil through the justifying of invalid actions, but God is the highway to a faster salvation - which is not to say a salvation in a promise for saving - any man can choose this - but it is the highway in time for man to accomplish his needed deeds and satisfy the temporal cravings to relax in a series of truths nearly approached and in the presence of God. This is more powerful than anything on Earth, and simultaneously it is the least understood - the shadowed door at the end of the hallway whose nature is never defined but that beams with goodness and rightness from underneath its cracks.