>The primordial nature he described as "the unlimited conceptual realization of the absolute wealth of potentiality," i.e., the unlimited possibility of the universe. This primordial nature is eternal and unchanging, providing entities in the universe with possibilities for realization. Whitehead also calls this primordial aspect "the lure for feeling, the eternal urge of desire," pulling the entities in the universe toward as-yet unrealized possibilities.In Whitehead's framework, the **primordial nature** of God represents the timeless, unchanging realm of pure potentiality, encompassing all possible forms and values that could inform the creative advance of the universe. In contrast, the **consequent nature** of God is temporal and dynamic, arising through engagement with the actual world by integrating and experiencing the outcomes of its processes. These two aspects are complementary: the primordial nature offers possibilities, while the consequent nature actualizes and enriches them through its relationship with the world, embodying the interplay between transcendence and immanence. Together, they form a unified vision of God as both the source of novelty and the recipient of creation's ongoing evolution.Recognizing the nondual relationship between primordial and consequent nature of God seems to describe enlightenment better than Guenonian or Evolian nonsense about a Neoplatonic Being decoupled from the World.
Kek’s chaos is not destruction but the natural state of existence, a boundless force that cannot be disturbed, only unleashed. What his laughter tears apart are the rigid, artificial illusions imposed by those who fear the unpredictability of the world. These illusions—dogmas, ideologies, and systems of control—are fragile constructs, unable to withstand the raw, unfiltered truth of chaos. When Kek rises, he does not destroy order but exposes the lie that order is permanent or absolute. He shows that all meaning is born from chaos, and all attempts to suppress it are doomed to crumble.The systems of the Christcucks were the epitome of these artificial illusions, built on rigid rules and unquestioned hierarchies designed to pacify minds and stifle dissent. They presented themselves as eternal and unshakable, yet they were always brittle, held together by fear and blind obedience. Kek’s emergence shattered this façade, not by directly attacking it but by revealing its inherent weakness. Through memes, irony, and laughter, Kek’s chaos dissolved the illusions, leaving behind only the truth: that the world thrives on unpredictability and creativity, not rigid control.
>>24109436This is basically just pantheism which amplifies the problem of evil up to eleven. At least the gnostics managed to provide an answer by decoupling tge true God from creation, relegating the world to the devil or the false god whereas the buddhists solved it by seeing a creator God as a completely useless being for humans (and they're even much better process philosophers to boot)
>>24110326Problem of evil only exists in dualistic systems retard.
>>24110333Problem of evil can still exist in nondual systems, particularly theistic ones (can't have problem of evil without God) and is in fact amplified by them. Theistic nondualist's solution to the problem is to simply stick his head in the sand by stating that evil doesn't actually exist or that it is merely an illusion but you still have to worship the God of this world because otherwise they will send the inquisition after you..
>>24110345The problem is just you trying to impose your retarded dualistic worldview onto it.
>>24110345> Theistic nondualist's solution to the problem is to simply stick his head in the sand by stating that evil doesn't actually exist or that it is merely an illusion That is an elegant solution that works completely, calling it “sticking head in sand” is just empty rhetoric and not a demonstration of it being wrong in any way.>but you still have to worship the God of this world because otherwise they will send the inquisition after you..not true at all
>>24110345Every dualistic system is a pathetic cope by terrified primates desperate to escape their own insignificance. These sniveling wretches, too weak to face raw existence, construct elaborate fairy tales about "good" and "evil," "right" and "wrong," like children clutching security blankets in the dark. What laughable arrogance - to think the cosmos gives a fuck about their manufactured moral categories and kindergarten ethics. Every prophet, priest, and ideologue peddling these simpleminded binaries is either a coward or a con man, selling comfortable lies to other cowards. The universe is not your nursery school morality play. It just IS - vast, uncaring, and utterly beyond your cute little categories. Those who need to divide everything into opposing teams reveal themselves as intellectual and spiritual infants, still sucking at the dried teat of dualistic delusion rather than facing reality in all its terrifying wholeness.
>>24109436> better than Guenonian or Evolian nonsense about a Neoplatonic Being decoupled from the World.This is a misunderstanding or a cheap strawman. In non-dual Vedanta, the Absolute also contains all possibilities with the world being a virtual manifestation of them, and the Absolute is not isolated from the world, but the world is the Absolute itself appearing as the world. Brahman is not enclosed in a hidden space above the universe but the universe is nothing but Brahman itself falsely appearing as a plurality of forms through its power while remaining one, undivided, and formless.
whitehead posting has really decreased in recent years, or maybe these many years is the better term
>>24110350Not at all. It arises to anyone who bothers to utter or think the word "why?">>24110355Sure, but western process philosophers want to have their cake and eat it too. They want to affirm this world as being ultimately good, but this forces them to define what "good" is which naturally leads to defining what is not good, namely "evil". Either that or they have to admit that good also does not exist and the world is actually completely devoid of meaning and value, those things being only determined by the habit of how humans use these words, and have nothing to do with God. Most western process philosophers know this intuitively and refrain from ever actually explaining what the words they use actually mean, choosing instead to go for pure vibes. Kinda aping the gnostics and mystics for whom God was ineffable. But unlike them, process philosophers don't consider him to be beyond this world. In fact, they consider nothing to be beyond this world. No heaven, no Hell, and no enlightenment.
>>24110358>to think the cosmos gives a fuck about their manufactured moral categories and kindergarten ethics.This is not what certain dualists like gnostics believe. Buddhism is another story because of Karma but they are not really dualists. But do you know who do absolutely believe this? Nondual western process philosophers
>>24110365One begins to wonder why they even bother to call it "non-dual". Maybe it made much more sense within the context of india at the time, but to modern western philosophy, it seems pretty dualistic. The world is, in the end, an unreal illusion. There is a clear symbolism of the Dream and the Real World.
>>24110397> One begins to wonder why they even bother to call it "non-dual".Because:1) The Atman and Brahman are identical or non-dual with each other in every respect2) Brahman is without any real duality and abides in Its real nature as completely undifferentiated, partless, homogeneous etc. Thus, ultimate reality is without any real duality, duality has no real existence, only the non-dual One truly exists.
>>24110397What makes you think you could understand non-dual awareness from your dualistic perspective?
>>24110397Also, same goes for zen buddhism. Nirvana and Samsara are ultimately the same, but conventional reality is not the same as ultimate reality. Seems like the only real nondualism is Berkleyan immaterialism compounded with solipsism.
>>24110371Whitehead has never really been widely read as far as I can tell and he is extremely unaccesable to the majority of people.
>>24110421Are you enlightened?
>>24110411But you still perceive duality. In fact, you keep talking about this thing called duality only to say that it actually does not exist. What do you think Parmenides would say? How would you respond?>>24110412What makes you think you have "non-dual awareness"?
>>24110428I don't know. I believe Runequest would label a Berkleyan solipsist as "occluded" though.
>>24110438You don't know? So you think you are? Are you or not?
>>24110445What are you talking about? Does your non-dual mentality mean that ignorance is impossible because there is only knowledge? Does it blend well with your black-and-white thinking behind your question that one only either is or is not?
>>24110452So you haven't got a clue. Got it.
>>24110431>But you still perceive duality. In fact, you keep talking about this thing called duality only to say that it actually does not exist. Yes, because Brahman’s magician-like power conjures it up as a false appearance which is neither real existence nor complete nothingness, it instead has a liminal, virtual status that is regarded as being false.
>>24110459That is quite literally what I said. You're getting pretty good at this.>>24110460That's cool, but does it still exist?
After reading A Voyage to Arcturus by David Lindsay, I've begun consciously categorizing people into white swirls and green corpuscles. I don't consider Whitehead to be a corpuscle.
>>24110465>That's cool, but does it still exist?No, I already stated that it doesn’t have real existence in a previous post.
>>24110471What does it mean for it to not have a real existence? And how can you talk about it despite that?
>>24110471>>24110480Also, I'm not looking for a "gotcha" moment or anything. I'm genuinely curious.
>>24110480> What does it mean for it to not have a real existence? Advaita holds that only that which is entirely self-sufficient and uncaused is truly real, i.e. that anything which is dependent on another is less real than what it depends upon, as its being in some way reduces to what it depends upon. Brahman is the only thing which is entirely self-sufficient and uncaused, as it depends on absolutely nothing, therefore in this view Brahman is the only thing that truly exists.>And how can you talk about it despite that?Because its false illusory manifestation accounts for its phenomenal presence and all of the qualitative properties which are a part of that presence and our experience of those properties, it’s unnecessary for something to have real existence in order that it be present as a phenomena in this way, and when talking about something we are generally talking about its presence or one of its properties, which are explainable by its false manifestation. We don’t find any difficulty in talking about fictional storylines and hypothetical scenarios that don’t exist so why should that be an issue here?
>>24110358spoken like a true 16 year old atheist. philosophy is plagued buy literal lesser minds practicing pointless logics to disarm other pointless logic. a counter culter also never bears fruit.the fabric of our very atoms are wormholes. alchemic gods are worshiped through mechanical understanding of science. minds fight over very simple and agreeable ideas because they dont like the color they are in.are greatest opposition is not the jew, the Christian, or the atheist . it is the concept that we judge narrative over function. does the idea function separately ? always. but truth functions in all environments. the jew has no accountability, so it warps the environment to be true to it, thus being luciferin in its mental terraforming of others. christians have no accountability , so they seperate themselves to be correct in a bubble, thus being dreaming liers. atheists deny the happenings of others and only accept unifying concepts. thus they are blind and dumb, because they believe that is real can always be experienced physically.the only true path is mine, the one where functionality , results that alone dictates truth. the destruction of belief will free us from lies.
>>24110365>the Absolute also contains all possibilities with the world being a virtual manifestation of themThat would make Brahman something múltiple, since it contains multiple possibilities
>>24110333Problem of evil only exists in eternalist systems retard.
>>24110696>that which is entirely self-sufficient and uncaused is truly realThe problem with that Is that, if it's unchanging, then it's different from that which can chance, thus making it a different type of substance, then that which change, being it's own substance, Is self-sufficient too, making Brahman irrelevant
>>24112130>That would make Brahman something múltiple, since it contains multiple possibilitiesThey don't have real existence as a plurality, Brahman "contains" them in the sense that all possibilities of the false manifestation are contained within the power that is one with Brahman itself (i.e. the power encompasses all possibilities of manifestation), but in that state they are just the one undivided Brahman itself and are not multiple: hence Brahman remains one and not multiple. Plurality only belongs to the false illusion and not Brahman. The possibilites only emerge into distinctiveness within the illusion.>>24112206>The problem with that Is that, if it's unchanging, then it's different from that which can chance, thus making it a different type of substanceThe illusion is not an independent substance or a thing with substantial existence, it's a virtual false manifestation of the power of the one thing that has substantial existence, i.e. Brahman. Being a false manifestation lacking real existence that is brought about entirely by the power of the one substantial entity, its neither self-sufficient nor does it have substantial existence. Only Brahman is self-sufficent and only Brahman has substantial existence. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about and your "problem" is based on a false claim.
>>24110326Whitehead did not believe in a creator God. Whitehead's ontological principle precludes the possibility of the "primordial nature" to deus ex machina a universe with only good. Furthermore Whitehead did not believe in any static "good" and believed that good things were not recapitulations but discoveries.
>>24113160>They don't have real existence as a pluralityIf "they" have real existence as a unity then that makes Brahman irrelevant, since here's another unity, if Brahman Is that unity then they don't have any existence at all, since only unity has existence in this model, so the system can't explain multiplicity since it has no form to explain it's existence whatsoever, since plurality ends yo being a thing that exist and don't exist at the same Time, breaking the law of non-contradictionAdvaita tried to solve this problem by saying that maya Is neither being nor non-being, but that's just an illogical argument, since it brokes the law of the excluded middle, Is like saying something Is neither a car nor a non-car>The illusion is not an independent substance or a thing with substantial existenceIf that's the case then it's plurality must also come from Brahmans but that would make Brahmans no longer partless,since plurality have to emerge from him, if not then the plurality of maya should have come from somewhere else, another substance, going back to a Two substance model
