A radically new understanding of God

[@corinabtaylor]

I think your hunch is correct! I love the term "Flowering" because that is what many of us are experiencing🌺. Others call it metamorphosis. 🐛🦋 We are beginning to see everything as God sees everything. "God isn't the creator of suffering. God isn't the suffering. God is the RESPONSE to suffering." That is Profound!! As Pam Gregory who is a top notch astrologer in the UK says, "We are welcoming in an expanded consciousness of Love", which I believe is the expansion or Flowering of God. Thank you Tim🙏💗

[@TimFreke1]

Beautifully put my friend.

[@TimFreke1]

PS If you'd like to explore these ideas and experiences with me, think about joining our little online community who meet up every Sunday.

[@corinabtaylor]

@@TimFreke1 Thank you for the invite.😊

[@victoriajones1575]

This gives me chills cause years ago my son asked me "what is god" and my soul cried out "please god help me not lie to him I dont want his foundation to be faulty" And my answer out of my mouth was "its like gravity its the energy that brings us all together"

[@TimFreke1]

@@victoriajones1575 ❤️

[@michaelbarrett7327]

I am not being sarcastic but sincere when I say I love how you have a radically different idea of god/slef/consciousness every time I check up on you. I think it is vital to this kind of exploration to not get tied to defending or promoting a particular stance. Indeed, don't consider your previous concepts to be off limits or "wrong" either. They are all perspectives on truths which are multi-faceted. Embrace all thought on them and continue to harmonize and evolve.

[@TimFreke1]

That's funny! But actually this is the view I first articulated 9 years ago when I wrote Soul Story ... now expanded and supported with a more comprehensive philosophy that I cant explore here as well. My previous ideas are not as good. At least to me. There's nothing wrong with being wrong or coming to see ideas as 'wrong'. Better ideas are better ... more truthful or trustworthy ... enabling more understanding and more emergent experience.

[@Vedicvibesorg]

@@TimFreke1 love you answering people, we do the same, it makes a whole difference in feeling being part of a greater network of searchers...And exploring....

[@slimdusty6328]

Even our ideas are evolving & forming and arising too. Its also the reason why humility is a bit like the most finest gold of all time

[@TimFreke1]

I love that

[@Americanboy1954]

My Grandfather taught me God is all in all. I have a Freke ancestor who came to Boston in the 1700's.

[@sereneamore8897]

Your work is truly profound, rethinking major spiritual traditions in a modern context. The cloud metaphor is brilliant, and the idea of soul evolution as the next stage beyond physical life resonates deeply. Your efforts to reconcile science and spirituality are vital for the modern world, addressing questions many of us grapple with. As a philosopher, you have the time and depth to explore these complexities, and you do it brilliantly, thank you.

[@TimFreke1]

I really appreciate you sharing this supportive message. I have a series of videos coming out later this year on KZbin and elsewhere, where I will explore these ideas systematically in detail, so do look out for that. And if you'd like to explore with me in person check out my little band of online explorers who meet every Sunday timfreke.com/ICU.aspx

[@LoveJungle420]

That was so interesting and refreshing! Thank you! Subscribed!

[@TimFreke1]

Thank you for taking the time to let me know.

[@joantollifson7408]

This is beautiful, Tim. ❤

[@TimFreke1]

Thank you Joan x

[@slimdusty6328]

Some very choice ideas to think about, thanks Tim 👌

[@TimFreke1]

My pleasure. Enjoy the contemplation.

[@laserhobbyist9751]

From my current gatherings of many decades, I tend to think there is no God except perhaps for a collective of self-aware beings which make a super-conscious higher level sum greater than the parts in the same way the cells of our bodies together have created us with a level of consciousness beyond them, yet are them.

[@TimFreke1]

​@@laserhobbyist9751 ♥

[@luwanajames2105]

I love your understanding and explanation of our Divinity! It takes away all religious and spiritual connotations and it is so freeing and it makes complete sense. It allows us to own and take our responsibility for our actions and understanding of how we are evolving and no longer place it outside of us. Bravo! Thank You for sharing your beautiful wisdom and insight, I hope for you many blessings!

[@TimFreke1]

@@luwanajames2105 thank you so much for that lovely supportive message - really appreciated. Have you thought about joining our little online community who meet up every Sunday to explore these ideas and experiences together?

[@johnboyle2672]

You have reminded me of the Paul Tillich quote, “The courage to be is rooted in the God who appears when God has disappeared in the anxiety of doubt” I understand you’re describing something somewhat different but sense you’re both moving in a similar direction where we release ourselves of the concept and the ideology of an existing God and all of the characteristics so that we can experience the emerging God and ..I find it very, very fascinating ..and I’m very grateful

[@Elias-Liv]

Just started watching, git really excited by "God is emergant". First time seeing validation for my similar idea, in the west God is all mighty creator, in the east its the dark dao.

[@deadfdr]

I think we can experience God and call it different things. Your explanations are very similar to mine since I became a Christian 47 years ago. What works for me is the Bride of Christ is the emergence, birthing the children from this union, love, joy, peace etc. holding in common all faiths that prioritize love and service to others as the highest value

[@TimFreke1]

Love these sentiments. However, I have come to think we need a 'post-scientific' spirituality now that takes into account the huge body of knowledge we've acquired in the last 400 years. So the mythic is poetically beautiful ... but we need more than that as well.

[@deadfdr]

@@TimFreke1 my views include post scientific considerations, which is why I find only 20% of the Bible useful for personal and communal growth. Your construct appears to require adherence to your parameters. Mine celebrates anything that results in the same product: Love.

[@marianrose1259]

You explained that really well, thanks. It’s pretty much my spiritual experience except I tend to commune with an indescribably unfathomable energy field rather than light. How you communicate your experience is very reassuring as I’ve tried many times to slot in to various mystical traditions but nothing fitted so I’ve been walking my own unique way many years. Thanks!😻

[@TimFreke1]

Thanks for sharing that. 🙏

[@btrbrianthomasrobson514]

Thank you for your comment.I too experienced various organised religions, none of which totally met my needs. I think a personall relationship with what we call God is unique to everyone. I came across the unitarians in the UK. who are open to all perspectives without judgement... peace and love...brian 😀

[@TimFreke1]

@@btrbrianthomasrobson514 I’ve had the pleasure of speaking in many of their churches in the USA

[@ryancook2105]

Hi Tim, Long time fan and reader of your work. I have been joining you on your journey from time to time over the past few years as you have been doing the work to articulate your view of the world you are trying to grasp as well as paint for others. To be honest, at times it is a little hard to find where "the rub" is for you and what it is that you are trying to bring forth that you feel is new and emergent and this video is a great help. I have watched a few of your videos with Rupert and also your distance from "Non-Duality" or Advita teachings in an attempt to paint a more wholistic view of the world and your disagreement with Advita teachings and "No-Self". Trading this in for " One you wouldn't be afraid to share with your children", Which is one of my favorite idea's of yours by the way! I'm hoping to publish some kids books for this very reason as well as to help my 6yr old son along with a beautiful world view I am happy to share with him. To me the phrase that stood out in the beginning of this video was about "God is not where we have been but where we are going"(paraphrase) And this is where it felt the real point of it all is perhaps and where some of the lack of synthesis is taking place(very sorry to presume) "God is where we are going, not where we have been"....In an honest attempt to join minds, it seems to me that if you were to change that phrase to a more integrated understanding in an attempt to include all the domains you mentioned you would capture everything you want to capture without any issue with any teaching. Something like " Not only is God where we have been, God is where we are going. Not only is God where we are going, but God is already here. Not only is God already here, but God can never arrive because God is always transforming. Not only is God always transforming, but there is a part of God that always remains the same. " This is an attempt to unite the seeming opposites and find a place for each of these truths. It's is true that All is One, that the many are of one vine, of one spirit. But the many make up the One and the One carries not it's existence as a standalone but as a "Wholeon" a super Wholeon more like it! The one can be one, but with no "other". "Otherness" is what we must give up to step through the veil into subjective Oneness. The experience of subjective oneness doesn't have to erase the parts, but they are indeed parts of the indivisible whole that the individual can experience first hand when its illusion of separateness is seen through. The non-dual state says nothing of these states and their meaning, which comes as an interpretation of the level of maturity of the mind in that person and then says what that state means about the world. Ken Wilbur has done extensive work in attempting to create a map with integral theory(which i'm sure you are familiar), that helps us look at reality as holistically as possible. His handy categories of Waking Up, Growing Up, Cleaning up, and Showing up are very useful in understanding that people may be disagreeing about something because they are mixing these domains and their evolutionarily stages. Also the idea of the four quadrants as any holistic view of a "wholeon". Internal Subjective Singular(I), Internal Subjective Plural(We/US), External Singular(It/The World), External Plural (It's/Systems) You mentioned the evolution of the Psyche and the evolution of the World, This evolution is happening in the Internal subjective mind of each being, then it is also happening in the internal collective mind of the beings "super mind" as you referend to it. Then its happening in the external material world and the systems of that world(standard evolution). So it seems, God is evolving on all possible fronts, The world is evolving on all possible fronts, We are evolving on all possible fronts, I am evolving on all possible fronts. So not only do brains evolve, but also the Mind and Spirit. And yet, underneath all of that is a pure awareness or "pure mind of God" in which this is all taking place. (The God, from which all experience springs) This is the one miracle that we must grant the Big Bang Theory. The miracle of everything bursting from NOTHING. This is the universal instinct for creation and the kind net of eternity from which all spring out of and which all returns to. God by definition is without boundary and uncapturable. The ever emerging God I believe you are teaching about, but also the pure soil of potential in which all experience takes place and souls of BEing's in all places share. In Ken's book he speaks of different people awaking through the ages. He notes " The emptiness that these people have been waking up to never changes, but the form in which they wake up is always changing" (another paraphrase) The guru of 2,000 years ago drinks from the same well when he taste pure awareness as the one who awakes in this very moment, but that guru will know very little of todays world, the paradigms and culture and technology of today, and yet they can share the same state of "Not Two-Ness". Everything being "One" as you stated is the start of this. It's all a point of perspective that God is taking on itself from the endless point of view of It''s constantly tetra-evolving non-self'....hahah! I praise your attempt to convey this stuff in an any way approachable manner and have prescribed your book Deep Awake to anyone who is feeling too disconnected from their body or experience due to over-consumption of non-dual awaking and teachings. It's true that it is a danger that we can disregard one domain after a revelation or peak state in an another and people can get " Zen Sickness" from having a one-sided drive toward the emptiness and peace, the opposite of the archetype of the Bodhisattva" Ultimately I think we can have the revelation and subjective experience of Non-Duality and an all encompassing view of each domain of our reality that needs not neglect our psyche (personal or collective) that also leaves room from evolution across the domains of the physical and spiritual as a constant unfolding. All the while rooted in the peace that comes with the revelations of " No Truly Separate Self" I know that as much wholeness as possible is your goal too, which Is why I took the time to leave this message for you. Very much love, and thank you for your contribution to this space in our time. your heart really comes through!

[@TimFreke1]

Thank you for your message. It is very much in harmony with my thoughts 10 years back which have moved on radically. I have a long series of videos coming out soon which will comprehensively outline why i have felt it necessary to question things that worked for me previously and why my new ideas seem so much better to me. Why don't you join me in person at one of our meetups to discuss all this? timfreke.com/ICU.aspx

[@stillverseDri]

You are getting it! My brain comes out in cryptic poetry so nice to see your understanding try to find the words.

[@jbrink1789]

it's all interconnected. it's like frost forming on a window. holistic interconnectedness and possibilities

[@Theo_Phage]

The greatest trick the Devil ever pulled is convincing the world that it is a kind and benevolent GOD.

[@TimFreke1]

@@Theo_Phage wow - that really is a very paranoid idea. The ultimate undermining of one’s own experience. beauty is really ugliness. Love is really hate. Your experience of the divine is really the devil. Why would you possibly believe something like that?

[@foxdenham]

I have always found this saying so very human-centric and oh-so fearful. 'Talk about taking our eyes off God and placing them elsewhere! As if man (or the devil) could in some way supersede, or circumvent the ultimate divine power - Mystery, expressed as Love.

[@Theo_Phage]

Yeah yeah keep believing in GOD (Group Ov Devilz) you will be recycled like laundry for the next wash cycle lol

[@darrenjames6309]

Terrible idea, I think Christians should focus on love rather than obsessing with deamons and punishment and judgement and end times.

[@Theo_Phage]

@darrenjames6309 you don't know what you don't know what you don't know. You are atleast thrice removed from actual reality. Faith makes you weak. Love makes you blind. In is the only way out. Look within

[@andy_mac]

You are God. As soon as we try to intellectualise it, it's gone, and that's a part of the process as well.

[@TimFreke1]

@@andy_mac I think that common belief is a simple misunderstanding Andy. If you pay attention to something else, the experience is gone. That’s true of any experience because we are conscious of what we attend to. So if you are paying attention to trying to understand the nature of God instead of paying attention to God, the experience is gone as you say. But that doesn’t stop us understanding anything including God . In fact, without some idea of God, you would be a completely unable to experience God in the first first place because you wouldn’t know what you are experiencing . Without some sort of categorisation you would be unable to tell the difference between an experience of God and experience that is not God .

[@Folkstone1957]

So, you think saying everything “is one” is a good, clear foundation to start from ?

[@geertmeertens-sk7lv]

Yes. It is a mistake to think otherwise and each time it requires awakening to realize our mistake. Just look back on any dream you ever had.

[@Folkstone1957]

@@geertmeertens-sk7lv What is the mistake ? I don’t see how dreams are at all relevant.

[@TimFreke1]

Yes.

[@GeertMeertens]

@@Folkstone1957 In every dream (including the dream called life) we make the same mistake: we identify with the person and regard the rest as other(s). Each time it takes awakening to (be able to) realize our mistake: we were the whole dream, all of it, not just the seemingly separate person. Every dream appears in consciousness, is perceived by consciousness and consists of nothing but consciousness: all is one.

[@HowardCurtis-j1u]

@ 18:14 on, I couldn't help thinking of something Jesus had said (or at least "Thomas" said He said): "If flesh came into being because of Spirit, it is a wonder, but if Spirit came into being because of flesh, it is a wonder of wonders." --Gospel of Thomas, verse 29

[@TimFreke1]

My favourite Gnostic gospel. And I hadn't see this quote in this light is interesting. It is indeed a wonder of wonders. And that is how it feels when you connect with the beautiful big mind that is emerging from the process of evolution .... whatever name we give it.

[@herbertweiler7386]

Could we say that God is a learning with certain limits like chaos wich also has a certain mathematical limit if not it becomes autodestructive

[@TimFreke1]

I certainly think the universe is an 'autodidactic' process ... a process of self-learning. What we experience as conscious learning is prefigured the whole way through by the emergence of systems that have 'learned' how to be matter and then life and the psyche. Existence is the evolution of intelligence on myriad levels of emergence.

[@Truth_Beauty_Wisdom]

love is the evolutionary impulse by evolutionary impulse, consider it in the same way that we get a dopamine reward for finding sweet food (which was rare until man started farming) In the same way, love is the reward for acting in ways that ensure humanity's continuance. All the positive social activities we engage in that make us more likely to survive, are activities that get rewarded with the yumminess of love ❤️

[@TimFreke1]

@@Truth_Beauty_Wisdom that’s a lovely idea but naive I suspect. Actually throughout the biological evolutionary process and the development of human Society it is often strength and violence that is selected for in the evolutionary process . However, if we’re looking at what the next phase of evolution might be I also feel it will be about the expansion of love and universal benevolence.

[@stillverseDri]

I call them "biome" looks like my work great to hear more angles trying to describe the invisible physiology that we generate. Once aware we can begin to do it constuctively. Work with 8 people. Use simple music not english ( at 1st)

[@MazeyDaze]

I was wondering what your take on the work of Pierre Teilhard de Chardin is, as much of what you are saying here sounds in line with his thesis. Obviously he has a notion of a teleological God as an Omega Point at the 'end' of evolution, which I must confess seems more logical to me, but otherwise it seems there's broadly a shared underlying concept.

[@TimFreke1]

There are big resonances for me with Pierre, but also differences, some of which you mention. I would say I am pushing the idea of evolutionary spirituality further. He was one of the great pioneers, but was still embedded within Catholicism.

[@MazeyDaze]

@@TimFreke1 Yes, but his Catholicism apart, I am intrigued by how you might address the teleological issue. It seems to me that evolutionists deal with it by simply denying any notion of a gradual flowering-towards in the first place,. That seems illogical to me seeing the fruit is implicit in the seed, as it were, at every level of life. But this then implies an underlying a priori cunning plan, which you circumvent by saying, no God emerges at the end: He finally pops up made in our image rather than we made in His. But that kind of god I'd have to de-capitalise, I think. He sounds like the global internet condensed and compressed into one single syrupy Coca Cola good vibe, and I'm not sure I want to be included in that particular Pandemonium. But maybe this is not what you're saying at all - and I'm rather sure it's not. So I think I'm needing a bit more clarification, because otherwise I'm presently left with a hazy notion of a nothingness playing dice with the universe and producing...god.

[@TimFreke1]

@@MazeyDaze This will have to be quick. If existence is the realisation of potentiality in ever more emergent ways it starts with the primal level of this - which is not something with intentions of intelligence. So no teleology until these emerge 14 billion years later. God isn't emerging in our image any more than a multicellular animal emerges in the image of a single cell. As physics suggests the primal levels need to be understood as information and studied with maths ... but this will evolve into music and love and beauty. What starts as unconditioned change (chance) will become conditioned change (causality) and eventually conscious creativity. The flowering metaphor is to create a picture - no more than that. Obviously the universe isn't really like a flowering plant.

[@MazeyDaze]

@@TimFreke1 Thank you for that. What you say sounds an intriguing and coherent attempt to develop a theory that can marry science and spirituality. I think one of the obstacles to me going "scrub all that about the meaning of life being 42 - this really is it!" is that the science of evolution itself is still so poorly developed as yet. Which means there cannot help but be umpteen "and then x begat the evolution of y" Just-So Stories without any real explanation of how other than by invoking sleight-of-hand magical quantum leaps or whatever. I'm not anti-evolutionary theory in the slightest, just unconvinced we know as much about how it works as we think we do yet. And the consciousness/mind-body problem is still the ginormous perennial party pooper, of course. Also, although diehard Materialists willing to accept notions of an emergent godlike AI supermind are ten a penny, those willing to accept anything remotely smelling of spirit, soul, or even psyche (and don't even whisper "god", heaven forbid!), are a relatively small number. Meantime, while Quantum Physics may currently be catnip to those in the spiritually-inclined camp, most would even today still demand a god at both ends - an Alpha and Omega - plus a 'proper' First 'Cause that is a more than just a random nothing, I think. But who knows? In a Multiverse all possiblities are possible, so could be we're still all merely quibbling over how many angels can dance on the head of a pin in any case. Still, despite all this, as with all your work, I do really think this latest understanding of yours has much in it of real value, so am greatly looking forward to seeing the full exploration of it later in the year.

[@ali-karimi1]

In my view and experience, the impersonal presence is perfectly indifferent and unbiased, not loving or benevolent. Any loving or benevolent quality must appear in that presence as a added quality of the human mind. Reality cannot be loving or benevolent.

[@TimFreke1]

@@ali-karimi1 the impersonal or pre-personal has no qualities as you say - but the benevolent presence most certainly does hence seeing it as evolutionary. It is not reality as a whole it is a particular emergent system within it. I’m sorry if that didn’t come across to you in this short extract.

[@achildofthelight4725]

Its only when you know yourself, will you know the Father 😊

[@TimFreke1]

Yes - exactly ... I am suggesting a new evolutionary way of understanding this perennial mystical insight.

[@achildofthelight4725]

@@TimFreke1 there is nothing mystical about being.... it is only what being is, nothing more, nothingless.

[@TimFreke1]

@@achildofthelight4725 very true but the insight that you shared is one that has been repeated through the ages by various people that are often known as mystics in the spiritual traditions of the world - that on a deep level we can become one with God.

[@achildofthelight4725]

@@TimFreke1 many have experienced it in out of body, or near death, even through deep meditation.... many also get stuck into a reality which sends them cuckoo... It is all within us to be explored.

[@Dyslexic-Artist-Theory-on-Time]

This is an invitation to see a theory where light is both a wave and a particle, with a probabilistic ∆×∆pᵪ≥h/4π, future continuously unfolding in relation to the electron probability cloud of atoms and the wavelength of light. In this theory, the wave-particle duality of light and matter (electrons) creates a blank canvas that we (atoms) can interact with forming a future relative to the energy and momentum of our actions. This interaction is represented by a constant of action in space and time, mathematically denoted as the Planck constant h/2π. This concept is supported by the fact that light photon energy ∆E=hf is continuous exchange into the kinetic energy Eₖ=½mv² of matter, in the form of electrons.

[@shaunbanana911]

So communion of souls is a common ground for those souls that are spiritually awake and open to the experience of oneness and those souls not presently open to oneness but who are presently experiencing and expressing another aspect of it. Is that correct Tim? I like the image of the fire with sparks rising and falling back into the fire of oneness

[@TimFreke1]

Not the ground ... if we use a spatial analogy the communion of souls is the sky we can reach up to. The undifferentiated One is the ground.

[@shaunbanana911]

So we could say that the spark was the ground that differentiated into many sparks evolving into an ever growing fire in which all the sparks exist and are part off - rising and falling within

[@TimFreke1]

@@shaunbanana911 no, I wouldn’t see a spark as the ground. I would see the ground as simply undifferentiated being with no other qualities. What we refer to as one in mathematics.

[@tbarrelier]

What we call "God" is simply the SPACE which enables being. The only attributes of "God" are oneness and "allness". The All is One, there is only the All.

[@TimFreke1]

I agree there is something primal that enables being - hence I call it simply Being. But as it has no other qualities why would we call this God. And we can say this undifferentiated oneness of Being evolves into ALL qualities ... as you say... but again why would we cal that God? What extra quality or qualities makes it more than simply the multifarious universe? Finally I don't think it works so say God as 2 attributes - the one and all, because if God is All then God is all qualities ... and that begins to look like we aren't saying anything at all really.

[@tbarrelier]

@@TimFreke1 Dear Tim, personally, I find the word "God" to be a minefield of meaning and best left aside. The Universal Axiom is: "The All is One; there is only the All." I think the concept of "Brahman" works better than "God". Since there is no, and cannot be "not All", it would seem that "God" must be/have all qualities. However, I would argue that "qualities (qualia?) are mental and, perhaps, extraneous to "God/Brahman". That does, however, leave one in a quandary. You can't have it both ways. If "God" is All in All (Thomas Aquinas), then that must, indeed, mean God "has/is" all qualities. To a human, this is horrible. God is hate? God is war? God is suffering? (The way I try to get around this is in the idea that human knowledge/experience is limited and we don't have access to ultimate meaning/understanding (God's books). I realize that is unsatisfactory, but that's what it looks like to me.) How can "God/All" be of only two qualities (All/One) and still be all qualities/qualia? The Hindus introduce the idea of "Maya", that experience is ultimately illusory. If "God" is the Ultimate Source/Origin, one must ask "Why would God indulge in illusory qualia?" Some say it is God's/Brahman's play, a diversion. Not a palatable idea. The idea of "God" being the Space that allows Being is more satisfactory to me. "Form is emptiness, emptiness is form" hints at a more satisfactory explanation, but why/how does form arise from emptiness?* You got me. For years, I have tortured myself trying to understand what is probably not understandable. It seems to be the ultimate paradox. There is something in me that doesn't want to accept the idea that the Ultimate Reality is not understandable. Is this human arrogance? Maybe. But why would the All-Knowing create beings (we humans) with the desire for ultimate knowledge and the inability to obtain it? Where is the mercy in that? Seems cruel, n'est pas? I look forward to your ideas on this. *This appears to be an unchallenged assumption, that something comes out of nothing. Can we be absolutely sure of this? This seems to imply a time when there was nothing and then, at some moment, something arose. Why would Nothing create something, i.e. not-Nothing? To me, this is the same as saying God created not-God. How is that possible? Why/how would time come out Timelessness? Was there always something? What could that be? What does that even mean? Tim Baralis

[@mikefoster5277]

Universes come and go. As do radically new understandings. God remains, simply as what is - timeless, formless, without cause or reason, yet the source of all.

[@TimFreke1]

But isnt what you just said here also an idea that will come and go? So maybe it is time for this old idea to go ... so we can move on in the evolutionary process to new and better ideas ... until they are also replaced by something better?

[@mikefoster5277]

@@TimFreke1If we were talking about some physical (and therefore limited) object(s), then yes, what you've just said makes perfect sense. But God is surely a different and unique case? I don't think we can apply the same normal logic to God, if God is clearly beyond such material and intellectual limitations. Of course, that doesn't stop us coming up with various theories and ideas between us, but we possibly shouldn't take them too seriously, and should perhaps instead be brave enough to concede that the ultimate truth is simply unknowable to us.

[@TimFreke1]

@@mikefoster5277 it’s always wise to realise our understanding is partial and evolving. I am looking for the most coherent understanding I can find of the experience that I have in the past I called God. So in doing that, I don’t assume the theological ideas that you’re assuming . I start from the experience that I others have and look for an understanding.

[@mikefoster5277]

@@TimFreke1 The 'theological ideas' I'm 'assuming' are the result (as in your own case) of many years of pondering, questioning and personal experiences. So I hope you're not suggesting that your own experiences are somehow more important or valid than mine? Yes, it's always wise to realise that our understanding is partial and evolving, but as I hinted at in my previous comment, this logic surely only applies to something limited - i.e. something that can (in theory, at least) become known? But if God is _not_ limited, then how can our human understanding [of this infinite potential] be evolving? The only way it could possibly evolve in that case, would be for us to realise that we're chasing a lost cause - that what we're trying to understand can't be understood!

[@TimFreke1]

" I hope you're not suggesting that your own experiences are somehow more important or valid than mine?" Of course not Mike ... they are just not my assumptions any more. My point is that in your latest comment again you have simply stated your assumptions, which I don't share, so your arguments doesn't work for me. If your assumptions are true you are right ... but i think your assumptions are false.

[@shaunbanana911]

How do we go from the ground of being to the communion of souls/psyches - Science explains this I assume - Quantum fields, particles, molecules, chemistry and biology etc driven by evolution and emergence - How do we explain the order in the universe - Is it random chance or a creative force - Its one of those big questions

[@TimFreke1]

@@shaunbanana911 every evolutionary step is what has existed before forming new relationships and that’s creativity. The idea of emergence is that the new could only exist because the past exists already yet the new is more than the past.

[@shaunbanana911]

Each step and relationship of evolution is guided by numerous factors which are either random chance or a creative force or both actually - Your comment implies random chance otherwise you have a creative force which is difficult to explain as been simple - At some point though that god like creative force emergences so it can flower - There is a root that grows into a flower or it’s random chance or both

[@TimFreke1]

@@shaunbanana911 I think what starts at random chance or neutral probability becomes conditioned by the past so the probability of Things continuing as they have been before is high but there is always some difference - and sometimes that difference becomes significant. Neutral probability will eventually become the conscious creativity that I’m expressing in choosing these words.

[@shaunbanana911]

What purpose does the ground of being serve in this random chance? You trying to understand your fundamentals as it’s easier to understand where you’re coming from and going to. Your ground of being is the only fundamental spiritual element and I am trying to understand the root of that which flowers into god

[@shaunbanana911]

I meant I am trying to understand your fundamentals - I am on my phone so it’s not letting me edit my previous comment

[@carlt570]

I guess I'm still a bit confused by your theory - it sounds like you are saying that there is 'The One' that is evolving (in all the myriad of diverse ways) and that the most emergent aspect of this is God ?

[@TimFreke1]

@@carlt570 you have it exactly Carl

[@carlt570]

@@TimFreke1 It's a wonderful and thought provoking theory. I love the Eastern and Western amalgam ! i don't understand why you are resistant to incorporating an idealist position into your theory ? Consciousness as part of, and fundamental to, the evolution of 'One' resonates so beautifully with this.

[@TimFreke1]

@@carlt570 because this is adding a quality quality to the ground which will actually not emerge for 14 billion years. I suggest the idealist position is a complete misunderstanding of consciousness.

[@carlt570]

@@TimFreke1 I'm intrigued how you know when, or indeed if, consciousness emerged ?

[@TimFreke1]

@@carlt570 the same way that we know at what point everything emerged by observing the evidence and making the most plausible judgement.

[@shaunbanana911]

I was wondering what type of process was responsible for order in the universe, evolution, emergence, life, psyche and soul and whether it can only be either mental or material or both - I guess as the ground of being is mysterious that would be fine. Obviously it can start off as a hybrid of the two or just material - If it was just mental then you are referring to a creative force like a God. People will naturally consider what TYPE of process is at play as these are the types of minds you are dealing with considering this kind of subject matter. You could say I guess that the mental realms required a level of evolutionary and emergent complexity to appear but then people might say you are suggesting that consciousness is the product of a brain (material). I think it will be tricky not to arrive at some material model or at least an hybrid of the two.

[@TimFreke1]

@@shaunbanana911 I can promise all of this will be covered in detail in my forthcoming series that will be out this year. So far you’ve grasped so little of what I’m saying that your speculation is way off as far as I’m concerned. But that’s not meant as a criticism because there is so little bit available. However, you could read Soul Story and that would give you the outline. It’s also available as a audiobook.

[@shaunbanana911]

@@TimFreke1 I have read soul story. I enjoyed it very much but I was left asking the same questions. There are only two processes in the universe - mental or material (physics) but I will wait and see

[@TimFreke1]

@@shaunbanana911 I’m saying that all the processing of the universe happens on its own level through the evolution of pastivity. Pre-physical, physical, biological, trans physical psyche

[@shaunbanana911]

@@TimFreke1 What is the nature of the pre-physical? - The trans-physical sounds like it's something that has emerged from the physical (Like consciousness rising from the brain - a material assumption) The soul stream that experiences the soul dimension sounds just as ambiguous I think all science minded people will ask the same questions and if it is not mental or material (physical - physics) then they will want to know what it is - Thats why I suggest the best option is to have a source of everything (Like the ground of being or a singularity) as a mystery otherwise the process is material or mental

[@shaunbanana911]

@@TimFreke1 "We see that materialism and idealism are the two main tendencies in the field of philosophy, but there are other viewpoints also, combinations of ideas and methods that occupy a position between these extremes." Its either materialism or idealism or a hybrid of the two - or its a mystery

[@johnboyle2672]

So I want to continue after meditating on what it is you’re presenting and I’m very much in alignment with the concept of the emergent God and the idea of the evolution and fullness of the psyche evolving we are on this evolutionary communal path, but I’m having trouble with is the concept that that there might not be a power rGreater than myself, and you may know that phrase from a certain program . I’m trying to incorporate what you’re saying into my understanding I think from me I have to look at it as a cyclical experience and that we and the psychic that we are evolving with and through and into are Part of a repeating cycle ..scripture says Jesus told us that the father is in him and he is in the father and I believe that is true for my self as for all human beings. I’m not quite ready to give up the idea that there is not a psych that is eternal and all powerful, and is also engaged in an emergence in our evolution, which is one of countless evolutions of psyche throughout a Multiverse throughout an infinite manifestation

[@TimFreke1]

This view which is very close to my own old views requires belief in something even more mysterious than the universe to explain the universe. I suggest something extremely simple and elegant and all-inclusive: Existence is the realisation of new possibilities in ever more emergent ways. And this must start with the simplest emergent not an eternal all-powerful super Being.

[@kathleenwharton2139]

Jesus Taught. Forgive and you shall be forgiven. This is an Energy Universe..what you Give is what Comes Back. Give Love if you want Love 💕 if you Give Hate or Fear..they too shall come back. 😊❤

[@eviltrickyspider5266]

God can be found in the golden ratio and everything around us including us. It's the frequency and vibration that creates everything it's not an entity that needs to be worshipped. I don't bow down to anybody's gods. Especially Anunnaki.

[@TimFreke1]

The golden ration is indeed important. But when i experience the 'something greater' as such love and beauty ...it is not a mathematical equation. Or something to be worshipped either for that matter.

[@Truth_Beauty_Wisdom]

WOW Tim! There is a new philosophy that was revealed in India in the 90's by someone who contemplated Reality for decades, pursuing a rigorous 12-18hrs a day. It matches so many of your contemplations that I have goose bumps! I've been investigating it for the past 2 years. It's only recently being shared in English, as the propounder shared his discoveries in Hindi. I have made friends with people who were some of the first to hear his discoveries and they are recently sharing in English. They are currently busy running an 8 day introduction to this philosophy as I write. But I have already spoken with them about you (a few weeks ago actually) and we are looking forward to an amazing conjunction. I don't want to share the philosophy's name right now, as the limited amount of things you'll find in English online are not very systematically provided. This family & I - (I've also been having major insights this week - hence couldn't resist making this first contact) - will be in touch to give you a proper guided tour of the philosophy. Much love Jim

[@TimFreke1]

Thanks Jim. I look forward to hearing more. ♥

[@CharlesGodwin-ck2se]

God = Life John 10:10 - "Behold I am (Life) is come that you might have inspired Life and have it more abundantly." Life eternally actualizes infinite potential, because only Eternity can fully embrace Infinity. Christ = At One with Life Empty of ego = Full of Life Being aware of being aware = Empty of ego To actualize potential: Dream it = Mind Feel it = Heart Do it = Will Integration = Integrity = Soul The abstract (Heaven) called Love by the Psyche (Firmament) can be expressed concretely (Earth) as a smile, hug, etc, thereby uniting Heaven and Earth.

[@julianfloa]

The concept of god arises naturally in humans when we expect the totality of existence to be subject to the same principles that the elements of the universe is subject to, such as the principle of sufficient reason or simply principle of preceding causes. When you assert that god is the outcome or process of nature and human nature you are no longer engaging the initial principles that gave rise to the god concept in the first place, you are no longer engaging in the actual problem. Does a rock fall into the pond because of the splash it is destined to create, no?

[@julianfloa]

Spiritual people are right to not accept your god, isn't it quite arrogant to redefine the meaning of words that has the definition they have precisely for the problems they attempt to solve without even entering into the conversation of solving those problems yourself with your new definition? It is beyond doubt that emergent things can not be substantial (so the debate must be concerning whether the apparently emergent things really are so, idealism), and it is equally beyond doubt that the concept of causation is abstracted from our tendency to correctly infer effects as following from the locations of the matter that preceded, without this there would be no duality of emergent and non-emergent.

[@julianfloa]

That there are ideas in human intent that is inexplicable does not open up for the concept of god either, we do not know why the emergent structures of human intent takes the character it does, but what about the inverse would contradict gods existence? Teleology of human intent will never give us a theory of 1. the origin of physical existence, 2. the existence of anything at all, 3. the absence or presence of homogeneity in all matter, 4. the infinity of distinct beings and universes. 5. the metaphysical existence of forms or ideas.

[@julianfloa]

To be sure, I do think teleology can explain the existence of ideas, but not their possible metaphysical/metaphenomenal equivalent.

[@TimFreke1]

@@julianfloa his completely adjustment to Use language in any way we want as long as we’re clear about it. But I’m not trying to simply redefine words here. My approach is quite different. I’m starting from an experience that I’ve been having since I was very young and many people have attempted to understand what it is . If you object to the word guard here and many people do then use a different word. I’m happy with that.

[@TimFreke1]

@@julianfloa I have no idea what you mean by that comment my friend

[@nothinghere1996]

divine presence and hell in the same sentence?

[@TimFreke1]

what does that mean?

[@nothinghere1996]

@@TimFreke1 Words are powerful. Use them carefully. I hear what you are trying to explain. It's jumbled up, like your starting sentence. I know what you say to be true, the colour and vision enhancement was the clue as this one s is so noticeable. Do you lie in your daily life?

[@TimFreke1]

@@nothinghere1996 what do you mean by the question Do you lie in your daily life?

[@nothinghere1996]

@@TimFreke1 Do you lie daily? In your daily life? or rarely? or not at all? Do you know the lampstands of God? Have you seen any?

[@TimFreke1]

@@nothinghere1996 you haven’t explained why you’re interested in my daily life or what a lamp stand of God is.

[@takemytvfirst]

So. A social memory complex. Have you read Qu'o?

[@TimFreke1]

@@takemytvfirst I’m afraid I have no idea what you mean by a social memory complex. And I don’t know what book you’re referring to either.

[@lucagalileoart9774]

You, and nearly everyone, are describing the way humans perceive life and the universe. The way we perceive things, even through technology, has nothing to do with the nature of something we could call fundamental reality, a reality totally, permanently precluded to our mind and intellect. Not because of luck of technology but because “knowing” and “being” are an oxymoron. As long as you understand that what you are talking about describes the world we see and experience, is ok. No universal laws can be derived from our perspective. An object, including a human being, cannot know a non-local configuration. An expensive Picasso painting is valuable only for us, for a dog would be a perfect place to pee...Same goes for Einstein equation, meaningful to us, meaningless to the “universe”.

[@TimFreke1]

There is a deep insight in this 'relativist' philosophy, but it also misses something simple and obvious. We are doing our best to understand the world we experience ... and we've got better and better at that ... reaching beyond our assumptions to previously unimagined insights that are congruent with what we experience. To say the way we perceive has NOTHING to do with a fundamental reality (whatever that means to you?) seems a misplaced statement of ideological faith. More plausibly it has 'something' to do with ... but there is room for improvement because of the limitations of our perception and ideation.

[@jamesworrall-j7l]

Oh dear…..

[@andyfoofoo5759]

An ant in the hall of the great king trying to explain God. Cute. Van Morriston speaks of, " the inarticulate speech of the heart." Kabir speaks of a pitcher bubbling away as it sinks. Then it's not heard from. And yet we are compelled to speak of it. Or it's like a snail crawling its way up a wall feeling it out and wanting to describe what's over the top. Ramakrishna speaks of the ego knowledge and Tim gets marks for trying while others dance, weep, sing, laugh and.... osculate.

[@TimFreke1]

@@andyfoofoo5759 unless we try to understand how do we know what our words mean? in which case how can we make sense of anything you’ve said - or I’ve said or anyone has said?

[@andyfoofoo5759]

@TimFreke1 Exactly. Other senses and novel verbal constructions are going to be needed to explain the evolution of the ineffable. Which we can't by it's very nature. I can apprehend the emergent or the emergence but cannot comprehend it. Nor need I. Vimala thakur speaks of the totality moving with the totality. That leaves me schtum. As in mouna. But the bee loves to buzz about the nectar it's enjoying at one with the flower. You, as I, can't 'understand 'what Jung calls the mysterium tremendum. The difference between jnana and bhakti. Yet we revert to words like the transcendent and the immanent. The field is energetic and at some juncture, we sit non verbal. In Baraka and Samadhi which has us mute. Dazzling lucid confusion Rumi calls it. The Energetics of communion is different to pedestrian communication. But I get words, as logos, hold power if as RW Emerson said, " truth will (hopefully) find the right word. "

[@Grandpa_Boxer]

Nice imagination.

[@TimFreke1]

All new ideas come from the imagination ... where else?

[@gcviolin2]

You keep forgetting who makes it 'one'

[@TimFreke1]

No one makes it one my friend ... otherwise it wouldn't be one it would be at least 2. And if the thing that made it one had any other qualities such as wisdom or intelligence, then it would be many.

[@TimFreke1]

@@gcviolin2 maybe replace the word ‘one’ with ‘undifferentiated’ Graham - see if that works better for you.

[@gcviolin2]

@@TimFreke1 my position is that *you* (each sentient being) make it one. You unify the world through your intergration of your multiple perceptions. You are the centre of one particular pom-pom ;)

[@gcviolin2]

@@TimFreke1 ah, I think we are coming at this from different directions. Undifferentiated does not work for me at all.

[@TimFreke1]

@@gcviolin2 We certainly do combine our multifarious-perceptions to make our experience one ... but that works for us because what we are perceive is indeed a whole of interrelating parts Looking and listening are very different but both relate to the one universe .. and it is one even when we are not looking and listening.

[@rondolkin4235]

So much speculative drivel.

[@TimFreke1]

@@rondolkin4235 thank you for your reasoned response. It’s always a delight to hear peoples’ counter arguments when they have thought deeply about an issue before giving a knee-jerk reaction.