o the Nature of God ~ Ultimate Reality as we have access to It and as I have described It in the previous pages is the basis for our existence in the most fundamental way: effectively an Existence Field or Will Field (just as I had originally called it in version one of this short model) which generates or supports us and all else that exists within the reality of the One. This Existence Field also provides a communication means analogous in many ways to the World Wide Web / Internet and the basis for "virtual" travel and the "virtual" locations between which we seem to travel. It is also the basis for perception, intelligence and mind, in fact the basis for everything that exists. It no doubt has many properties and functions which we do not understand or even know of at present. If we wish to use theologically based terminology and refer to God, we must know that we are dealing with a concept of god with no anthropomorphic characteristics. No "I", no ego, no desires or emotions as we know them. No vanity, no jealousy, no desire for worship or praise or any of the other trappings or impediments to understanding that religion attributes to God. No human based love of us as worshipers, children or creations; just an ultimate spiritual love as described in relationship to Absolute Free Will and the Second Principle: cherished as individuated beings within the greater being of the One. We are not talking pantheism here with God in everything. We are talking about what might best be called an inverse pantheism in which everything is within God and exists only as and because it is part of God, within God's Existence Field. Within the Will Field of God. Within the Mind of God. Within God's Dream. Because God is Mindful of us. And to return again to Hildegard von Bingen's imagery, we are as feathers on the Breath of God.



e are talking a concept of God with no human appearance and no personality. In fact, no appearance at all. It is like a fish looking for the water in which it swims for individuated conscious beings to look to see the face of God. Another aspect of this situation which should be specifically pointed out because it is inherent and so basic to our own thinking as "incarnated beings" and therefore accepted as the way things are, is that there is not just a single point of consciousness associated with God ~ Ultimate Reality. This point should help clarify why there is no "I" associated with God. The concept of "I" involves singularity of being and while there may be only The One, only one God ~ Ultimate Reality, there is certainly not a single point of view associated with it. We as humans can really only focus on one thing at a time. It is known that one reason we have so much difficulty creating large systems that can function without error is that we can typically only keep mental track of perhaps 7 to 10 things or relationships at a time. When we start trying to deal with more than this, we loose focus and things start to slip from our "mental grasp". We become confused and make mistakes. The concept of God that we are dealing with here has no such limitations of perception that we are aware of although we have no way to really appreciate the actuality of the situation since it is so far beyond our own capabilities. We have no way to truly appreciate the perceptive abilities and multidimensionality of the Mind of God.

f we take the Ultimate Reality approach, we perhaps do not expect these anthropomorphic characteristics. I do not take this approach exclusively because the phrase Ultimate Reality has an implication of mechanism and physicality rather than being. We already know that meanings are relative and we do not have adequate terminology but we definitely are dealing with Being, even if not with a persona. I do not take up the terminology and acronyms of Thomas Campbell and My Big TOE because it would need extensive explanation; better to read it directly for its extensive store of information and this is in no way intended as a copy or extended review. My more traditional terminology has semantics and a history that requires much less explanation and relearning and "accuracy" in this terminology simply cannot be achieved because of our limited viewpoints so I perceive no value in switching to new terminology that could be built to suit. Learning to switch terminologies and viewpoints in relation to the One is a valuable ability to develop as you switch between sources as you build your own model of Ultimate Reality. As I continue with this writing, I find myself more and more using the One as my designation for God ~ Ultimate Reality as I see it as having the right semantics. Whatever terminology we choose, we do not have just a Creator or First Cause. We also have a Preserver. And finally we might be thought to have a Destroyer as well. However, it is not destruction but rather re absorption. A returning or a Union with God. We and all else that God chooses will remain a part of God. The expectation is that the models of reality created and perfected by us through our virtual lives, particularly with relation to interactions and relationships between beings, will remain part of the One, but not necessarily the virtual "physical matter". All our experiences and mental creations or inventions will remain a part of God. Or we may graduate from limited beings in a learning laboratory into full being as an individuated intelligence in the greater dimensions of Ultimate Reality. The religious concept of making your self into an offering acceptable in the sight of God is not entirely a meaningless phrase. We can each continue to exist as ourselves, in our real, multi-life, fully developed Soul, as a part of God although some of us may exist only negatively as having defined a model of a reality which has been deselected as not a desirable part of the over all reality. We each however through the operation of the second Primary Principle have access to and are subject to a continual way of remaking ourselves in terms of higher spiritual truth and spiritual love and understanding so we can do our own de selection of portions of ones self as no longer operational that we individually come to see as not a desirable part of our own internal model of reality.