“Neither of us is completer or perfect in ourselves.”

“Do you need the world for completion or does the world need You?”

Both.  Neither of us is complete or perfect in ourselves.  I can only develop a self-consciousness and hence become a Person by interacting with the world and hence with people.

For the first time, the dim outline of an overall story was emerging.  If we and God develop together, in interaction with one another, then the drama of history and of individual lives begins to make sense.  We are not standing still; we are moving forward together. 

“For the First Time . . .Thoughts . . .Plans”

I had been told how early human beings first started making marks that represented this or that – the beginnings of language.

“And this helped them to think about those things?”

For the first time, thought can be detached from objects.  Plans can become abstract, long-term, not just emergent possibilities inherent in situations, as they are for animals.  The response to other creatures can be evaluative, normative.  It becomes possible to notice that a particular action falls short of the best or right action, that a particular human being falls short of the ideal human being. 

“Love Exists at All Levels, at the Physical Level it is Gravity.”

“Zeus had changed into Eros when about to create,” writes the early Greek thinker Pherecydes, and, “having composed the world from the opposites, he led it into agreement and peace and sowed sameness in all things, and unity that interpenetrates the universe.”

“It is an arresting image, Lord, Zeus changing into Eros in order to bring opposites into a unity.  Was Pherecydes inspired?”

No, he was not inspired.  The particular passage is insightful, however.  It reflects the dynamic in the universe, in being, the dialectic of otherness and sameness.  There is sameness in all things and I put it there.  It is equivalent to order.  Otherwise things would fall apart.  A similar image is centripetal and centrifugal—there need to be forces of attraction and forces of repulsion.

“I understand that, if the gravitational pull were just slightly stronger, all the galaxies would collapse into a single lump.  And, if it were the slightest bit weaker, nothing would hold together.  Lord, could gravity, if this makes sense, be a kind of love or an expression of love?”

Yes, love exists at all levels, just as spirit or soul exists at all levels.  At the physical level, it is things like gravity.  At the level of human personality, it is integrity; it is the “transcendental unity of apperception” for consciousness (personality).  It is institutions and mores for society, balance and harmony for art, and so forth.

“The First Glimmer is Found in the Lowest Molecules.”

Consciousness developed very slowly.  The first glimmer is found in the lowest molecules, in their ability to interact with, to respond to, their environment.  Whitehead and Teilhard are on the right track in this regard.  (Leibniz is not.)

I had to look again at these thinkers to see what God was getting at.  Rejecting the mind-nature dualism, the twentieth-century philosopher-mathematician Alfred North Whitehead held that, even at the micro level, every event is a pulse of existence, feeling and responding to its environment.  These “prehensions” are not so much states as vectors, arrows pointing to connections with the surrounding world.  The Jesuit scientist-philosopher Pierre Teilhard de Chardin spoke of the “within” of things, their interiority, which “appears at the heart of beings”:  “Co-extensive with their Without, there is a Within to things.”  In every part of the universe, “the exterior world must inevitably be lined at every point with an interior one.”  By contrast, the seventeenth century philosopher-mathematician G.W. Leibniz believed that everything in the universe was made of elementary particles that were not matter or energy, but minds, centers of consciousness, each of which internally mirrors all the others.  In short, Whitehead and Teilhard believed that physical (or psycho-physical) nature has levels of awareness—and they were on the right track—whereas Leibniz held that there is no physical nature other than points of consciousness.

As God went on, He sounded a lot like Teilhard.

What happens is that reactions have an internal dimension—responding to the environment, the molecule begins rearranging its internal parts and configurations and processes.  This is the beginning of interiority.  Ultimately, interiority involves the second-order process of monitoring and directing inner processes.  But, even at the beginning, prior to the emergence of second-order processes, there is an emerging consciousness.  To be conscious is not the same as and does not require self-consciousness.  It can be very dim and limited and still be consciousness, because something new and remarkable has arisen—the pre-sentient and then sentient awareness of the environment.  Don’t worry at this point about what is meant by “pre-sentient” awareness.  Your understanding is necessarily anthropocentric, using human consciousness as the standard by which to understand all forms of consciousness.

Love Yourself as I Love You

Remember that I love you—I love all human beings—without reservation.  Ideally, you would love yourself as I love you, as I loved Jesus, for example.  But that is not normally possible for human beings, because there are many obstacles.

“But it is possible for a few?”

For some, yes.  I have blessed them with the ability to transcend those limitations.  They can love themselves fully, and this permits them to love others.

 

“The Personal is essentially interpersonal.”

God was telling me about His interaction with the earliest animals, long before homo sapiens.

 It is mainly an instinctual unselfconscious rapport that we have.  But (I feel) a great excitement at the process of life and evolution itself.

“Why isn’t that enough?”

In a sense it is.  Animals do have uniqueness.  Each animal is distinct, has its own soul.  But they lack self-awareness, and that is true even of cats and dogs and apes.  You can interact with them but there is no second-order reflection, hence a very truncated sense of time—just a sense of temporal motion, of passage from an immediate moment-just-passed to a next moment anticipated.  And even that cannot be thought about, represented symbolically or made available to self-consciousness.

So I cannot develop solely through interacting with them.  It is static, inert.  We just are together.  I could not become a Person without there being other persons.  The personal is essentially interpersonal.  Like a child who first lives in an undifferentiated world, in which other people are merely contents of his or her own oceanic flow of consciousness, I needed to separate Myself from other persons.  And so I created mankind.

“There was a Self, timeless, without reflection, at peace.”

“Lord, I don’t understand what existed at the Beginning.  It sounds as if you are describing Your own birth as well as the birth of the universe.  What were You before the explosion of Creation?  A pregnant nothingness?”

A passable description.  There was a Self, timeless, without reflection, still and at peace, like calm waters, lucid, not nothing, but not something either.  The universe contains many things, not just somethings and nothings.

What kind of Nothingness can explode into Being?  Ah, I thought, maybe a Nothingness that is not just nothing, but is the Plenum of Potentiality for All Things.  Perhaps the possibility of all things cannot fail to spill over into some actuality.

I could not settle any of these questions in my own mind.  All I could do was to continue to ask questions.  “Lord, what was there before?  What motivates the act of creation?”

I received the following words and images which I recorded in my notes.

“A feeling of loneliness, of searching, reaching—not yet a Person.  Expanding into the great emptiness of Nothing, which is ‘infinitely empty’ far beyond (far more empty than) empty spaces.  ‘Who am I?  What am I?  Am I an I?  What is an I?’  A chaotic feeling of the infinite rushing at the edges.”

“Lord, why did eternity ‘shatter’ in this way?  Did the still, self-sufficient stuff explode?”

I received the sense:  “Brittle, crystalline, too perfect, static, isolated, removed, alone, bored, incomplete.  The eternal already had the potential to be a Person but could not do so without creating time.”

And I also got the feeling that God desperately wants to be understood.