Two Forces of Creation

Alan Anderson Christopher

Description

The purpose of The Two Forces of Creation is to define the two forces of creation. I state on the Preface page: "For aeons, mankind has been embedded in a paradigm of creation that suggests there is a one force central to us all. This work looks to the possibility of two forces of creation, what they are, and their implication on our thinking and living." The Two Forces of Creation constitutes a monumental paradigm shift. "In review, let me suggest that 'what is' is relationship-in-process. Relationship-in-process is fundamental or primordial, not a First Cause or One Force. This is to further say that there isn't a supreme being although there may be supreme beings. There isn't a mover of the spheres although there may be movers of the spheres. There isn't a one God who sees all that becomes or forms all immortal beings although there may be gods that do just that. There is not a single fundamental primordial creative force in the universe." The Two Forces of Creation

Sujets

• Dating

Informations

• Publié par: First Edition Design Publishing
• Date de parution: 13 novembre 2012
• Nombre de lectures: 0
• EAN13: 9781622871988
• Langue: English

Extrait

The Two Forces Of Creation
Christopher Alan Anderson


First Edition Design Publishing, Inc.
The Two Forces Of Creation



Christopher Alan Anderson
The Two Forces Of Creation
Copyright 2012 Christopher Alan Anderson
ISBN 978-1622871-98-8

Published and Distributed by
First Edition Design Publishing, Inc.
September 2012
www.firsteditiondesignpublishing.com



ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No part of this book publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means ─ electronic, mechanical, photo-copy, recording, or any other ─ except brief quotation in reviews, without the prior permission of the author or publisher.
Foundation of Man and Woman Balance
www.manandwomanbalance.com
Note to the Reader :
The Two Forces of Creation was written in 1988. Later it was combined with three other writings into Selected Writings—Volume 2 and published in 1991. The writing is a bit rough in places. I was only in my thirties at the time. But there are some real jewels to be found through out as is often the case in original work. Also, the use of the masculine and feminine could be smoother. Sometimes I use man, mankind, him, his, etc., to mean both the man and woman. In any embodiment of text, that takes time to work out.
The purpose of The Two Forces of Creation is to define the two forces of creation. I state on the Preface page: ” For aeons, mankind has been embedded in a paradigm of creation that suggests there is a one force central to us all. This work looks to the possibility of two forces of creation, what they are, and their implication on our thinking and living.” The Two Forces of Creation constitutes a monumental paradigm shift.

C.A.A.— September 6, 2009
Santa Rosa, California
Table of Contents

Preface
The Two Forces of Creation
The One Force Theory of Creation
“Who Am I?”
“Why Am I Here?”
The Standard of Balance
Enlightenment
Mysticism
Humanism
Paganism
Romanticism
The Two Faces of Love
Creating Together
Aphorisms for the New Age of Man and Woman
Preface
For aeons, mankind has been embedded in a paradigm of creation that suggests there is a one force central to us all. This work looks to the possibility of two forces of creation, what they are, and their implication on our thinking and living.
The Two Forces of Creation
Since the dawn of consciousness, mankind has been asking himself “Who am I?” and “Why am I here?” These two questions follow any being’s realization that “I exist,” which is a realization fundamental to consciousness.
There is another question involved, implicit in them actually, and that is the general question, “What is?” If we could answer, “What is?” we would in that moment be comprehending the nature of reality. That would lend us some contentment for, when you think about it, we find ourselves in a strange situation. Here we are, alive on this planet, and we do not know who we are or why we are here or how things really are. I often wonder, how can this be?
There are a number of similar questions that are fundamental to us as well. What is God, i.e., life, death, creation, energy, and cause are some of the questions that take us to the heart of things. These types of essential questions are called metaphysical questions. In asking them we seek to understand “what is?” We seek to understand the basic order or nature of things. Metaphysics is that field of study through which we seek to discover and understand the source of things, to uncover the “unseen” causes or forces at work controlling this visible universe.
We may want to ask why we seek answers to metaphysical questions. Basically, because it seems that the better we understand ourselves and the world we live in the more able we are to guide our lives to fulfillment. A major part of life is in directing our lives to the destinations we seek. But what if there aren’t any answers to these metaphysical questions? Many thinkers, after rigorous contemplation and investigation, have concluded just that, that the basic questions about our origins, our creation, God, the universe, and ourselves cannot be answered or at least not fathomed by man. Just because we ask questions does not in itself assume there will be answers to them, does it? Then again, maybe it does.
Regardless, we keep asking and searching. Irrespective of what others may have said, most of us still keep asking, holding to a belief that somewhere there is a basic order or sensibility to things. Why do we hold to this belief? Because it is the same belief that we hold in ourselves, that we can know who we are and why we are here. To relinquish this belief is to relinquish our belief in ourselves, in our lives. And that results in insensibility and chaos, and we know where that leads.
When did man first encounter the idea that there could be a given order to things? Undoubtedly, about the same time he came to the conception of a one God. Monotheism is the idea that there is a One Principle or First Cause or Supreme Being at the center of creation. The conception of monotheism was a great leap forward in man’s progression and actually solidified his fragmented consciousness. Its service was as a central conceptual factor without which relation, and thereby organization, are difficult to come by. Imagine going about the world trying to make sense out of things without the conception that there is a basic order to things. Such would indeed be mind-boggling.
A good example of this monotheistic conception as it developed is given by the early Greek philosopher Pythagoras, 570 - 500B.C.
God is one. He is not, as some think, without the world, but within it, and entire in its entirety. He sees all that becomes, forms all immortal beings, is the author of their powers and performances, the origin of all things, the Light of Heaven, the Father, the Intelligence, the Soul of all beings, the Mover of all spheres.
This quote is interesting not only because of its revelation of an order to things (One Principle) but also because of the further implication that all things have their source or energy in God. Not only is God perceived as the One Principle but as the First Cause as well. This should not be surprising. We have heretofore assumed that a One Principle (order) and first Cause (impetus or force) were the same. Aristotle speaks of God as both a One Principle, eternal and unchanging, and as a First Cause, the unmoved mover.
Many names have been given to this “supreme essence” that subsumes both the ideas of a One Principle and a First Cause. Along with those mentioned are Divine Essence, Supreme Being, Absolute Unity, Infinite Energy, Universal Life Force, Unconditional Cause, and Universal Spirit. These conceptions all exist under the umbrella of monotheism which, as I have mentioned, has been one of the greatest conceptions of man, so great, in fact, that it may have hampered him on another level. We seem to have assumed that all things had their source in the oneness of God. We did not delineate between One Principle (order) and First Cause (force), for example. Yet order in itself does not subsume a one force. There could just as readily be two forces within nature without any loss of order to nature. Order does not subsume reality as being a oneness or unity; it does not subsume a primordial God, Unmoved Mover, First Cause and the like; it does not subsume a singular God, spirit, mind, consciousness, or essence. In short, order only subsumes order and not necessarily singularity. In fact, singularity may in itself preclude order. So why haven’t we critically analyzed this distinction between order and force but instead fallen so easily into the idea that singularity holds the heart of all things? Is it because, given the vastness of things, it is just easier to believe that some First Cause is in control of our lives? Whatever the reason may be, it has been, as we shall see, a costly oversight.
The reason why I want to distinguish between a One Principle (order) and a First Cause (force), which is the principle reason for this work, is because without doing so we will never be able to fully understand who we are and why we are here. This is to say, we will never be able to understand ourselves. You may wonder why this is so, why this distinction between order and force is so important. It is simply because although we can comprehend a One Principle, we cannot comprehend a First Cause. Let us see why this is so.
There are two fundamental problems with the idea of a First Cause. The first has to do with the idea of cause. Cause itself is not a singular term. The whole idea is cause-effect. There isn’t anything singular unto itself called cause and, in fact, the idea of cause by itself is meaningless. Cause has meaning in reference to effect. Both cause and effect are the necessary parts of that relationship. It is the whole relationship, cause-effect, that is fundamental, not one part of it. In bringing in the idea of effect to cause, we actually nullify the implication of first. There isn’t a first cause-effect, or last cause-effect for that matter. What came before the “first” cause was the effect of the cause before and so on. When we bring relationship to the forefront, we also bring in process; a relationship is a continuum, i.e., cause-effect, cause-effect and on and on. With a relationship-in-process there isn’t a First Cause, only an infinite series, a cycle, sequence, or reproduction.
The second problem with this idea resides in the implication of a singular force. An example would be the idea of the Unmoved Mover, which suggests that there is something that can affect yet not be affected. But this cannot be the case. There must always be two forces at play, action-resistance, for either force to affect the other. A force singular unto itself hasn’t any power. It is ineffective. It is inert. As a force it isn’t, at least until there is another force. This again takes us