Panentheism and the great will

**Pantheism** is the belief that all of
reality is identical with or supervenes on divinity, or that everything composes an
all-encompassing, immanent god. Pantheists when distinct from a
specific religion generally do not consider this to be a distinct personal or
anthropomorphic god, although there are exceptions. Despite this, they may be panpsychic in nature, considering it to have the latent properties of mind even if not being a person per say.

Though there are
a lot of distinct positions under the pantheistic umbrella, pantheism
is sometimes used as a general term for all of them, but in the more
limited scope, is at other times restricted to that the physical
world taken as a whole and divinity are identical. **Panentheism** is
the explicit addition to this that notes that divinity is not limited
to the manifest physical world, which is only an aspect of the full
divinity.

## General info

In the West, athough earlier forms of it had existed, pantheism came into popularity as a separate theology and philosophy from regular
theism based on the work of the 17th-century philosopher Baruch
Spinoza (also known as Benedict Spinoza), whose book Ethics was an
answer to Descartes' famous dualist theory that the body and spirit
are separate essences. Although the term pantheism was not coined
until after his death, Spinoza is regarded as its most celebrated
advocate. His work, Ethics was the major source from which Western
pantheism spread.

Pantheistic and panentheistic ideas have existed before being conceptualized as a distinct idea however, ranging back even to pre history. Some religions in the East (most notably
hinduism) continue to contain panentheistic elements. But spinoza's
work was the point at which it became seen as a distinct concept.
Especially in a context free from an explicit religion. Pantheism is
now one of the common basis-es people use to make sense of a concept
of the divine free from the influence of religious dogma. (another
concept is deism, which holds that sentient gods exist, but religious
revelation is false, so we can only hypothesize about them via
reasoning). Another basis for pantheistic philosophy is to make sense
of the concept of the divine free from alleged superstitious
mentalities. Since it will often try to make sense of the concepts of
divinity within a naturalistic framework that is compatible with
observation without positing any additional forces acting on the
world suspending the natural order.

It may be confusing to some what is
actually being gotten at with the project of distinguishing pantheism
from theism and atheism. But the point is that terms like “divinity”
and “holiness” may refer to real qualities of things that
actually exist, and which one has to make sense of even if the terms
to not refer to a sentient creator. Likewise aspects or structures of
reality may fulfill the roles of these properties in such a way that
they heavily resemble what traditionalist religion was often trying
to get at, even without necessarily positing independently existing
intelligent beings. Sometimes even having abstractions of some kind
that are thought of as a being in a latent sense such as with
schrodinger's pantheism below.

## Pantheism and spirituality in mainline

### The great will

pantheism (more specifically
panenthism) is a central aspect of the megaten universe. Various megaten games or side comics, such as wings of the falle, or the visionary items in II talk about how the true god isn't any individual, but everything, with everything being a part of god. This is called various things in game, such as the great will, the great reason, the will of the universe, the axiom, the depths of infinity, etc. The term great reason comes from the neo confucian term li which means cosmic law, but the connotations of which also apply to individual action, and it is possible that the term great will comes from the japanese book an iniquiry into the good, which describes a pantheistic vision of the world.

The great will is
presented as a kind of panentheistic world soul that spans across the entire multiverse. It is depicted as
both the ground of being and force that generates reality, existing
prior to it (the lady in black says that the way of amala is dictated
by the great will, implying that it has some aspect that is prior to
the multiverse in general), but also on the flipside as a universal
world soul it is depicted as a collective overmind that is effected
by the thoughts of those within reality. It, or aspects of it are referred to by various terms across the games by different sides. The term great will is used most often however, especially in a lawful context.

Being a collective overmind,
it is presented as something that does have in a sense a latent flow
of thoughts that people do present as it performing semi independent
actions, but it is not really presented as an independently sentient
being. But rather these actions are in some sense extrapolated out of
the collective of reality. Although the different sides all understand that the power of being itself being a force behind everything is all-encompassing, and so beyond good and evil, their pantheisms still associate values with it as a whole, and they often associate these with the specific aspects of it that they think correspond to their own slants.

Now, what do we mean by **ground of being**? Ground of being is a concept that shows up in various mysticism traditions under different names to highlight this idea that all things have the same metaphysical ground that supports their existence, or existence in general. Even if there is a sentient god, the aspect of god that takes action is usually not seen as the source, but as itself having its origins in an abstract power of being that is the same that all reality has. This is paradoxically seen as enhacing the dignity of people, giving them a divine essence, as well as emphasizing humanity, due to them having no independent existence outside of the divine unity. This ground is generally seen as immanent within all things. The most well known example of such an idea being brahman in hinduism. While different religious views may differ on the degree to which the ground is independently aware, megaten views the great will as more abstract, not being an entity proper.

Note that as regards the pantheistic aspects of the sides, it is not necessarily the metaphysics of the world
that the alignments are disagreeing about, but the ethical and spiritual
ramifications one should take from it. This does not mean that all characters understand it however, due to human characters or groups sometimes being presented as less in the know (especially as regards yhvh trying to conflate himself with it). But this referring to what the most aware perspectives of each side reflect.

In the end, it is meant to be an overlapping of several religious concepts, such as ein sof, the tao, brahman, etc. But it interprets them in an existentialist light, in which one can use their own lens in which to percieve it.

There are different ways to focus on it, especially in light of the different alignments. However, one undercurrent that in mainline most of the sides (though mainly law and chaos) seem to share a bit is interpreting it in a somewhat kabbalic light. The demon world is
also sometimes referred to as atziluth rather than the expanse /
abyss. Atziluth being the first archetypical plane of existence that emanates out of the
infinite unknowable god in kabbalah. Implying that the
primal part of the great will / axiom is unknowable like the ein sof,
but that things in reality emanate from this panentheistic divinity.

Other concepts from the kabbalah like the tree of life
often also show up, being depicted as immanent within the worlds,
strengthening the association. (More information about that on the
kabbalah page). Note that this is not the only association. chaos also uses the om symbol as a logo.
Which hints at the abstract brahman and one's relation to it.
(Interestingly them seeing maya as a positive figure also specifies
their desire for individuation though. Showing taking some concepts
in a different direction). However, kabbalah is the primary association in mainline, and any worlds that focus on angels and demons. An important facet of this is that in kabbalah, especially hermetic qabalah, the light and dark sides are both aspects of the system, rather than darkness being a deviation. And they are seen as intertwined. In majin tensei ii you are told that the angel, demon, and human worlds are like light, shadow, and the tangible objects between them. They are interrelated, and the entire system forms a cohesive whole. Though how this should be responded to is seen as different by the different sides.

One should note however that different serieses sometimes have a different focus on what is the main emphasis of this pantheistic vision. Digital devil saga uses brahman and hinduism as an idea for example. Mainline however focuses mostly (but not exclusively) on the kabbalah. The abyss is structured on it in II and the avatars of god are shaped like sephirot. The abyss is called atzulith at times. Aside from the angels and names of god calling kabbalah to mind, even mem aleph is based on it for the seeming yhvh analogue of chaos. and iva's plot is based on it also, and even shows a tree of life symbol. Note that this does not necessarily mean that mainline worlds versus the digital devil saga world are different in the absolute sense, but in which the perceived relation to this spiritual dynamic that people have. The choice of what lens one uses being an existentialist one.

Before getting to the pantheisms of the
specific sides, one should talk a little about the general axiom / great will
itself. In an interview they talk about how the birth of the great
will (also called the great reason. To show that it is both the
structure of reality as well as its summation. And the axiom, to show
that it is seen as an inherent truth of reality) or reality itself is
beyond human understanding. It was described as not necessarily
directly sentient, but as a field of relations that has some level of
collective instinct. The things within reality give form
to its "thoughts," and in a literal sense are in a way its thoughts themselves. This was confirmed in an interview where they said that emotions in the collective oversoul of the axiom would themselves become gods when they arise. In essence, the gods seen are described as arising in the heart of man, tying to an existentialist view of what one chooses to value.

This ties to the spinozist idea that the pantheistic "god" not being an entity still in a sense has an "intellect," but the contents of the divine
intellect do not differ in any way, shape, or form from the actual
things that exist in the world. This is why reality itself is equated to the great will in megaten. It heavily resembles things like schopenhauer's panthelist idea of will as the ultimate / monad reality derives from. Though it also has aspects calling to mind being like a cosmic law, which is why it is called the li / axiom.

This also contextualizes the place of individuals within reality. While individuals have a sense of distinctiveness, their identity is never fully stable, and they are also ultimately just parts of the great will, similar to pantheistic visions that focus on people's relation to the larger picture. Part of spiritual awakening within the games, especially for law ties to the mysticism based focus on realizing your relation to this bigger picture. Gore as the ubergestalt for example saying that he has become all, and that his consciousness has become one with the planet. And also in SJ, law characters focus on the phrase "this body" which clarifies that people are not fully discrete or stable as identities, and so are in a sense ultimately a construct of the larger whole.

In the beginning only the axiom existed. They say
that (at least for the worlds talked about in that interview) there wasn't necessarily a point where demons existed before humans. They are symbiotically connected, and so when humans arose from the axiom as observers of the universe demons did as well embodying their thoughts. (With a message from steven in one of the guides saying that humans and demons may have paradoxically both created eachother). Then, as time passed, specific gods and polytheism were shaped as
the result of their perception of the surrounding world. (Notably, this may mean the appearance of gods on earth, rather than spirits in general). Thoughts and shared ideas become patterns in reality
across the collective consciousness, which from the great will
generates gods. The great will then being associated directly with a
deep interpretation of the collective unconscious, which seems to
exist as part of it. The paradox about which came first being deliberately left ambiguous by the games.

In the interview they relate
differentiation of specific beings from the great will to the shinto
term Bunrei or wakemitama which is a technical term that indicates
both the process of division of a Shinto kami to be re-enshrined
somewhere else, and the divided spirit which is the result of the
division. Showing that things' identity comes from divisions within
the larger great will / world soul giving rise to individual aspects seen as more
distinct. This can happen not just from demons or humans arising from
the great will at large, but from demons coming from eachother also.
This differentiation of parts of the great will gives rise to the
multiplicity of beings seen within reality. Hence, one sees gods in part as representations of it.

Note here that the gods that emerge from it are indeed true gods. They represent and embody aspects of reality, being an aspect of the larger whole. Gods like yhvh try to claim to be monotheistic due to claiming they embody all the important aspects of it, enough to from their perspective represent the entire thing, and getting in a unique position of spiritual power over the entire universe. While this is partially true of yhvh when he is the ruler, it is also incomplete, being seen as a view of lesser spiritual awareness.

This is the basis behind why in the ps2 games yhvh and the great will are conflated together. Since he monopolizes the position of god over the world at large, in essence being continuous with it in a unique way when in power. And in its sense of the collective will it represents unity. But in smti when lucifer says that he is a piece of god that god discarded it is a play on words in reference to the fact that all beings are part of god / the great will, but yhvh claims to uniquely be god and speak for the infinite. Due to his position of power, yhvh being united with the great will is true in a sense, but is not the whole story, and it still exists apart from him.

Note of course that the different
sides have different perspectives on what the ramifications of its
existence are, and how they should interact with it, or even what
parts of it to refer to / focus on. Being a collective of various
unrelated abstract thoughts, there is not necessarily one clear
image on how one should see it, nor is it an entity that has particular whims one can directly listen to. Since individual things being in a sense
its "thoughts" of course show up for many alignments and so are in competition. And
megaten seems to reject a pure divine command theory based
understanding of it for any alignment.

### Specific forms of the sides

As far as the specific forms of pantheism that show up in the games, the most
nominally obvious is the gaians. Having gaia literally in their name,
they present themselves as having a deep attachment to the world and
nature. They do focus more on the physical earth they live on, but at
times make this obvious that they extend it to nature more generally. Note that while concepts like the great will refer directly to the abstract infinite, the focus on the world of the gaians and their ecological connection is a focus on a particular thing you have a direct connection to, rather than something unbounded. This does not mean they don't care about focusing on the ground of being at all (mem aleph being a kabbalic metaphor after all), but that their active language doesn't reference it as often.

In addition to the great will, the planet itself is also depicted as having an abstract latent unconscious, but in a smaller localized way. This is known as the gaia hypothesis. Their focus on a more localized pantheism ties to their ideology, living in tune with nature, and one's self actualization being about the things one has a direct connection to rather than a remote universal. But there are still side comics like wings of the fallen which show lucifer passing off the universal focus on the great will as also a focus one can have when chaos leaning. And in nocturne, lucifer's ties are less to the gaians, and he talks about the great will directly.

Chaos
seems to be respecting more the surface level relations, preserving
the distinctness of them. Although they do associate the collective
with the herd mentality and seek to break free from it, chaos still
does have these pantheistic elements. Based somewhat on nietzsche,
(though he himself was not pantheist) where the individual will is
composed of many "sub wills" or "sub souls" that
fight for dominance being their different impulses where one wins,
and he sees people at large like a larger expression of the will to
power in this way where struggling with eachother is life affirming
in this same way. Chaos likely considers the world as a whole to be analogous to this in the same way, with people being distinct wills vying for dominance within the larger system of nature. Chaos also tends to have an ethics revolving around deep ecology to some degree, and the need to uphold the natural flow of nature. This being tied to their spirituality.

The question of whether chaos to any degree identifies with the big picture taken as unified monad as part of its spirituality is a bit more ambiguous however. And obviously one answer may simply be that different members view it differently. It does use a hindu om symbol, and its associations with hindu figures like shiva can hint as such. And they are seen using kabbalic imagery. But they are never really seen doing so in an explicit way. While they do revere nature, this focus tends to have a more particularist embodied slant. Implying more of an emphasis on the multiplicity of individuality. Though one can say that nature still implies a big picture in a more loose sense. There is also an element in their offhand comments at times dismissing the great will. Which implies a focus like schopenhauer of an actually inverted pantheism that revolves around freeing one's self from this universal principle of will. Which can implicate rejection of viewing things in this big picture way. But that can be a paradoxical dual sided approach as pointed out below in their comparison to the sith, who despite being particularists who reject complying with the overall flow of the force still draw it into them to use individually and knowledge their connection to it.

Even neutral has pantheistic leanings. In SMTI on the neutral ending Taishang LaoJun (Lao Tsu) talks about the ambiguously defined “common thread"
that "binds all that exists", which people are part of. (in an interview they say that he is en embodiment of nature also) And
in II the neutral church had a ying yang symbol. Implying that the
neutral version resembles the concept of the tao, and the ebb and
flow of polar forces. More interestingly, in SJ, captain gore refers to it as the depths of infinity, referring to death as returning there.

Neutral's pantheism heavily is based on jung, even moreso than the other sides, since jung depicted his idea of the goal as a neutral one. Note of course that the archetypal nature of the gods and their relation to the larger reality ties the theism and pantheistic aspects together for the sides in general. More information on the theism and jung pages. Even dagda for dark
neutral does refer to being one with the universe. Jungianism being a big aspect of the series should be used in interpretation of how its pantheism is seen.

In terms of law's perspectives, what
might not be obvious is that when law uses the term “God”
or "The Lord" they often mean it in a pantheistic way.
They're not always referring to yhvh or the other avatars, but to an
abstract concept of god. The avatars are normally seen as related to this in a special
way, being embodiments of this perspective. This is made most obvious in the bonus scene of II's re-release
where zayin is calling out to god, and a mysterious force informs him
that God is not an entity, but “everything.” This being similar to how lucifer describes god in wings of the fallen.

The term great will is used mainly in a lawful context to refer to this universal focus, of which the avatars are a mere part, despite having a special symbiotic relation with it. Note however that some beings within the universe are not aware of this and so see yhvh as a true monotheistic god. In raidou they refer to a catholic church as where people go to worship the great will. So those who see it monotheistically are those who are conflating the great will and yhvh together. Note that although it is subtle, some messians use logos that emphasize triangles, implying a triple aspect of god. Since trinitarianism in the normal sense is not a part of their teachings it is left ambiguous what this is meant to mean however. Examples of more pantheistic examples of triple focuses are given on the tillich or process theism sections.

Note that even their focus is not
necessarily set in stone. Hikawa being an ex gaian talks about “the
world” when depicting his new ideology, despite it being analogous
to law. And mastema as an angel in IV uses the term the lord even though he works for neutral. If you want a way to relate the relationship between yhvh and
what they call god in the wider sense, think of similarly how mem
aleph is related to the earth. She seems to be a specific spirit of
it that represents it closely, in ways that many other of their gods
aren't, and can merge to it directly, but obviously the earth can
survive her death, and isn't identical with her. Note that the sides
can also disparage the pantheistic elements of the other sides. But while their focuses refer to different things, they often overlap since every side has to account for all the aspects of reality and how they relate together. And the great will itself is not a lawful entity, despite having an affiliation to the rules of cosmic order.

It helps to relate the concepts to the specific religions they tend to appear as. Law looks mostly abrahamic, with a little bit of new age and eastern. And so its pantheistic vision is a more abstract idea of the concept of god as a result, though often interpreted not as a being per say. Chaos is more eastern. So its idea of nature is more eastern influenced, drawing on the tao, dharmic religions and brahman also, though it also has a heavy element of modern western nature worshiping religions. Although both law and chaos share the kabbalic aspects, since chaos is more of a cross between east and west chaos never relates it to the idea of god despite its use of the kabbalah, which is more in keeping with satanic kabbalah. Neutral is more taoist, and so relates it to the tao. Though neutral and law both have buddhist elements as well. Understanding the religions that each of the sides are mainly based on helps give context for how their pantheistic visions would be contextualized also. The different pantheistic terminologies used by the different

sides don't necessarily refer to totally distinct things however. They refer to aspects or interpretations of the single universal axiom, or what they consider the sublime aspects of it to be.

The question then is what distinguishes
the lawful and chaotic aspects of spirituality and pantheism. One
thing to note is that even though the lawful pantheistic idea of
“god” is not an entity per say, it is still treated -like one- in
a metaphorical sense more than the chaotic alternative of earth or
nature (see pluriform monotheism on the theism page for an
explanation of how that is seen). Which sets a different tone of how
things are to be seen, since even if not a literal independently
sentient entity, it is still seen as an implicit one you relate to,
whereas “nature” implies more of a shared system.

As such it is
seen more as a "group" entity and by extension universal
lawset that everyone has duties to, and is a part of. (for more
ideas related to this, see the contributionist section of
process theism below). And so explains more about how lawful
spirituality involves relating with the whole, Since individual
things in-game sometimes function as “faces” of god. Which shows
up in kabbalah where different combinations of created sephirot
function as faces of God. (though note that mem aleph seems to have a
similar relation with the earth for chaos, but this is downplayed).

So the implication is that law personifying their pantheistic focus
implies seeing it as more of a universal collective. People are meant to see
themselves as pervaded by one global being, that become "more"
of a face of it the more they work in tune with it. The idea of god
as a single entity comes off more ordered than the more chaotic
nature. Even if they reflect aspects of the same thing. This is why lawful spirituality more often involves a degree of spiritual unity that at times overrides individual perception.

To help frame this in mind, one can also compare it to star wars. There is only one of the force. But both the light and dark force users venerate it and relate to the aspect of it that is considered relevant to them. With the dark side users venerating the dark side. Interestingly, this parallel is drawn slightly in megaten itself, in iv, where the samurai outfit from law leaning early mikado is designed to look like luke's outfit from the beginning of a new hope, and their sword hilts resemble lightsabers. And lilith's black helmet parallels darth vader's. Which loosely hints at a relation of their sides a bit to those sides in star wars, both on a spiritual and ideological level.

Another distinction here might be that
it being seen talked about more like an entity implies that the
lawful pantheistic focus leans more to the mind of the world, (with
what they call god being essence of the world soul) whereas the
chaotic focus is more the physical. Note that this corresponds to how
early people saw spiritual drives as related to mentality, and
impulsive sensual ones related to physicality. But one shouldn't mistake this for thinking that each side only cares about one of these. But just that it represents a different focus. Note that spinoza when talking about divinity in his
pantheism uses the phrase “god or nature” to refer to different
aspects of the same thing. Note that if mind is just say
information processing, and the world is composed of information as is implied in the games,
then mind and matter are really different aspects of or properties of

the same thing.

Note that neutral using the yin yang
symbol can also be hinting at this interrelation of law and chaos. The unity of opposites. That
seemingly opposed things may actually be different aspects of one
fundamental essence. Which in this case is aspects of the axiom. What aspects this means however is not necessarily meant to have a concrete answer, due to there being some ambiguity involved in the writing.

Obviously for obvious reasons one can
assume that the spirituality of the sides follows the same general tone as their
ethics. Lawful spirituality involving as lilith says “giving your
mind and body completely over to god” which to messians, means
seeking to become a more explicit part or reflection of god to share
in the divine nature. (At the most advanced levels. Random npcs don't
seem to have this specific a focus).

But doing this necessarily
shifts focus away from the self, due to one's identity shifting more towards
being a part of god. This resembles things such as stoic practices,
or some types of hindu liberation, though in more of a christian
theosis or quietist sense.This is framed into context when johnathan
as merkabah says that god seeks for man to become extensions of his
order, or in SJ they talk about the entire world becoming one
harmonious spirit. The ideal obviously involving everyone working
more in tune with to more actively be seen as part of god.

Note that despite the absolutist sense of this language, it doesn't mean that law characters don't seek to have personal goals. But rather, these goals are understood in light of the need for the system to protect everyone. And the different goals are seen as something that should be compatible with this larger goal. In contrast to the focus of chaos on manifesting divinity in a personal way where different "gods" can conflict.

So on the flipside, chaos seeks to adopt a
more individualist self actualizing spirituality. It sees focus on
the wider big picture as more of a way to frame into context one's
own realistic place in the world, so that one can have a realistic
self image with which to act authentically in a self actualized self
and life loving manner in ways to express one's own power. Which due to the individualist focus is more in a
heavy sense about relating to one's self in the proper way. And ties heavily to satanist conceptions of spirituality, and some forms of pagan spirituality or left hand paths.

Note that
jung when writing about spirituality interestingly did emphasize people
needing to balance between uber individualism and uber forsaking of
the identity of the self. Making neutral spirituality resemble this
balanced approach. Note that at different times in-game, neutral sees
itself either as rejecting both law or chaos, or accepting both,
while as merkabah says "accepting the lord's order yet remaining
aloof" from it. And lucifer says "you accept the presence
of demons, going so far as to subsume them."

This distinction between god and world
though actually taps into an interesting concept of religious
pluralism that the process theists discussed. That if you are finding
truth in multiple religions, it would be relativistic to assume that
all of them are necessarily describing the same “ultimate” or
thing when they are saying incompatible things. But rather, they may
each be describing different aspects of reality, but which are
compatible in a bigger picture. Though obviously not when taken literally, but as philosophical trends moving towards a larger truth.

The process theists noted that
religious ultimates seem to be divided into three types.
theistic, cosmic, or acosmic. Whether their ultimate
they focus on is equivalent to god, the world, or some type of truth
that is beyond the world rather than part of it. And they say that
each of these may be describing parts of a larger truth, because each
ultimate is one absolute way to describe the summation of reality
from one angle, despite not being the whole truth.

Obviously the point relevant to megaten is that the distinction
between groups is mainly that between language involving a theistic and a cosmic focus.
(interestingly the acosmic focus might be that of trying to determine
the reality of the great will in its aspects that are prior to any
given world, and not personified as an abstract god per say. Like how the lady in black says that the world's rebirth is
the unanswerable question).

Note that the sides don't just have
these pantheistic elements, but theistic ones as well. The world and
great will contains everything, but individual gods within it
represent and embody positive ideals and aspects of the whole on the
personal level. But there is more information about this in the theism page.

## Pantheism in side games.

One last thing one has to mention will
be some of the pantheistic elements of the side games. Since they
obviously exist as well, and we may be expected to see their aspects
as applicable in a sense to the main world. Though less interesting
than the aspects relevant to the main series. Note that the main series' pantheism is mostly based in the kabbalah, to contrast the side series-es having other focuses.

**Brahman**. First we have digital devil saga. They
use the term and concept **brahman** directly, relating it to the
hindu concept, and at the end seraph makes a realization noting that
brahman is the world and the world is themself. Showing a monistic kind of open individualist leaning view. With brahman and its avatar (which is just
called brahman in game) functioning like a different divine avatar
system for that world. One which it is mentioned at times is not the
one the angels are used to interacting with. Likewise, this is also
related to the pantheistic works of schrodinger, who considered
modern quantum physics to point towards a form of relation that
resembles the concept of brahman. The ending in dds2 seems to be
interpreted as a neutral ending, though it does not particularly
depict brahman itself as aligned with it in particular. Note that in
dds2, the god avatar brahman is depicted less like something that one
can just be "against" than some other games, being seen as
more a natural part of the universe itself by the people inside of
it. Brahman shows up with amala drums on it, showing connection to
the larger amala verse as a whole.

**Manitou**, from soul hackers refers
to the concept of a Great Spirit or of the interconnection and
balance of nature or life in many Algonqiuan Native American groups,
similar to the concept of Brahman in Hinduism. While Manitou itself
is based on the concept of a spirit inhabiting all things - not only
people and animals, but plants, stones, and even machines - the
villain itself appears to be based on the "Otshee Manitou"
or bad half of the spirit, while Nemissa appears to be based on the
"Aashaa Manitou" or good half. Manitou, in Algonquian, has
been translated as either "spirit" or "god." Note
that in-game, manitou itself the figure is depicted again as a kind
of avatar of a larger spiritual force, but it itself is depicted not
as a villain but as a near mindless force that was itself good(ish)
but was used for bad purposes turning it bad, and so which at the end
wished to die to free the human world of its harms. In-game little is
expanded on this in terms of pantheism.

**The Sea of Souls** is a recurring
location in the Persona series. It is said that all souls come from
the sea, and all souls will return to it when the person it belongs
to dies. While in the original games this had a more spiritual tone,
in persona 4 they refer to it as the sea of unconsciousness that
exists within human hearts. Due to the obvious jungian influences, it
seems they are interpreting it similar to as a maximal version of
Jung's idea of the collective unconscious. More information about
which is on the jung page. Note that even mainline games are based
heavily on jung's ideas. So relating this to the other concepts is
likewise useful. In the persona series they don't seem to often refer
to this in very pantheistic terms, despite noting that gods arise
from it. But jung himself obviously did, and there is an implicit
association.

**The Akashic Records** from Devil
survivor II comes from In theosophy and anthroposophy, the Akashic
records are a compendium of thoughts, events, and emotions believed
by theosophists to be encoded in a non-physical plane of existence
known as the astral plane. The game also says the world is bound by
akasha's chains. Which the word akasha used by itself refers to a
vague spiritual force that the ordinary elements derive from. This is
not an inherently pantheistic concept itself, but theosophy does
contain pantheistic elements. This is in keeping with desu2 having
less of a focus on divinity as a whole, since although terms like
heaven's throne are used for what polaris has power over, divinity is
rarely talked about, and the stars are not seen as gods. Canopus is
also referred to as the divine order of the universe itself, implying
some vague pantheism, with canopus as its main embodiment. And of
course, the vague astrology that shows up in game can be interpreted
as pantheistic as well, in a sense.

## Types of pantheism

There are various types of idea under
the general pantheistic umbrellas. Note that these ideas are not all
exclusionary of eachother. Some of them are compatible. Most of these
terms are of course rather vague, because most of them only serve to
describe the general source or nature of divinity, not the content of
specific beliefs.

**Pantheism** (in the restricted sense)
is the belief that the concept of god, while having tangible
existence is not necessarily something separate from the universe
that caused its existence, but rather is immanent within reality
itself. Different forms differ on whether this has any degree of
sentience, or is merely a force of divinity present in reality as a
whole. This is a more common belief in the east than in the west,
though it did exist classically in Greece, and has had a western
resurgence in the last few hundred years. In the more expanded sense,
pantheism can also refer to many of the things that spawned from it,
ad are sub aspects, such as pantheism, etc. Pantheism has various
varieties which can have different focuses. For instance, focus on
nature itself as divinity is different from say the more human
focused pantheism of the stoics where greater development was more in
tune with and a more proper expression of the full divinity.

**Collective pantheism** is the idea
that only the summation of reality is properly divine, and individual
things only have or experience divinity if any as a reflection or
piece of this absolute. This is obviously leaning lawful rather than
chaotic.

**Distributive pantheism** is the view
that each thing in existence each bears the qualities to be
considered somewhat divine, and so is divine independently. Such as
in certain animistic or neopagan beliefs. This can still view the
collective as a greater or larger divinity. Some pantheisms have aspects of each of these.

**Pandeism** is a belief joining
pantheism and pandeism which posits that while a sentient god existed
at one point, that at the current point it is now equivalent with or
immanent in the universe, and so is either dead, or lacks independent
existence. It is occasionally, though more rarely also used as a
synonym for pantheism that stresses that the universe is not
independently sentient. This being considered a position outside of
religion is rather rare, though sometimes applies within it to
primordial deities. Note that it bears some similarity to how
kagutsuchi functions in nocturne.

**Panentheism** holds that the physical
universe, while being part of and containing immanent divinity is not
the totality of divinity. But that the universe is dependent on a
transcendent divine that also extends (usually infinitely) outside
the universe. Note that there can be different forms of panentheism
depending on what one sees this divinity as. It doesn't necessarily
have to be a tangible substance, or sentient. It can be for example
like the process theists present, platonic abstract objects. A base
of abstract inert potential that only actualizes within the physical
universe. Note of course that as far as megaten is concerned, this
does seem to be a more accurate description of is world than pure
pantheism. because the individual worlds are depicted as entrenched
in the larger abstract amala universe, and the great will is seen as
a single thing that exists as a collective outside all of them
(though pervading each one). Note that they say that the “way of
amala” which is the multiverse is determined “by” the great
will. Meaning that it also has some aspect that is prior to any
world. Since they differentiate the multiverse from the great will,
as something that comes after its most primal aspect.

Note that in the wide sense, some
people include the divine pervading the universe without “being”
it so to speak within the label of panentheism. And by those
definitions you would even include classical theism like
christianity. However, most exclude this, saying that it doesn't
count unless the universe is itself part of the divine.

**Panendeism** is an addition to
panentheism that explicitly states that the force of divnity is not
independently sentient and that naturalism is true / there are no
violations of the natural order. While most self identified
pantheists believe this already, this is a more narrow scope to
exclude concepts of panentheism where the universe is part of a
sentient god that can perform miracles. Note that despite sounding
similar, it means something different from pandeism.

**Transtheism** is a word for a wide
scale of beliefs. Its most simple definition is that it applies to
any beliefs that in some way go beyond a simple theist / atheist
dichotomy altogether, being in some way between them ambiguously. And
thus can be considered an word for intermediary type positions. This
can include beliefs such as paul tillich's which have a concept of
god as the ground of being that he calls the god above god, which is
panentheistic in concept, but which is placed in a trans-theistic
location due to the fact that he understands that some would not
consider this explicitly theistic. And while he considers it to
qualify for meaningful definitions of the project of theism, he does
not think that the “point” is whether or not it counts as a god.
Tillich believes that we moved past the point when we can rely on the
explicit existence of a sentient god. And so while one may exist, we
need to look past this. “god above god” refers to the abstract
aspects of the properties of divinity that we can more definitively
have faith in, and which he says once you refocus towards it will
diminish the relevance in terms of religious practice as to whether a
tangible sentient god exists.

Transtheism is also used often as a
differing term for forms of panentheism or ultimism that focus less
on the nature of god as identified with the universe, but as it as a
concept in general. (For more information about that check out paul
tillich on the heterodox christianity page). Transtheism can also be
used for the related positions of worldviews that contain gods, but
which the gods are not considered the highest spiritual reality, or
ultimately what you are answerable to.

**Transpolytheism** refers to the
subset of transtheism in which tangible gods exist, but are not
necessarily the highest divine reality in their world. More generally
it can refer to any belief in which gods exist, but at some point, or
in general one can move past need for reliance on them explicitly.
This word was coined to refer to certain religions like buddhism and
jainism to avoid people incorrectly defining them as non-theistic, by
highlighting that even though at some point you may move past
reliance on them, polytheistic gods do still exist in those systems.
Likewise, it can also refer to beliefs like stoicism which have an
explicitly sentient pantheistic god, and posits that polytheistic
gods probably (but may not) exist, but that you need not focus on
this. Or epicureanism which holds that gods exist, but have no
relation with earth, and so your only need to think about them is
reflection on their nature. (Note that many transtheistic systems
overlap with some kind of pantheism or ultimism anyways. Making it
ultimately more about that in many cases,).

This obviously has a lot of relevance
for megaten, since in many ways it is a core aspect of its worldview
as understood by all the sides. Polytheistic gods are seen as
existing, and not unimportant, but are something that you can move
past explicit need to rely on in a literal sense. And which the
religions can still function without the explicit need for. In a
metaphorical sense, if you interpret its gods as archetypes that are
not literal, it more closely resembles tillich's transtheism as well,
as you can make sense of the ideas of the religions as symbols to
point to the inner divinity of reality rather than as literal. Yet
this does not decrease from the use of the religions. Note also that
this can explain why neutral has a latent spirituality even when it
focuses on humanity and downplaying of the sentient gods. Since it is
not necessarily depicting it as atheistic in the sense of denying
spirituality altogether, but depicting the sentient gods as mere
other entities in the larger reality. One which one can theoretically
relate to the spiritual aspects of directly without need for these
entities. And likewise, neutral often deifies humans in their place, and so still does have a use for gods.

**Surrelativism** (surrelative is short
for supremely relative) is another word for panentheism with a
different focus. Individuals relate to people at individual times,
but there is a highest order of relation that encapsulates all
relation forever. Surrelativism encapsulates the unsurpassability of
this relation, where panentheism encapsulates the universal scope of
it. Though the term was made by a process theist, nothing about the
term itself necessarily is limited to only process theism. It does
however generally relate to panentheism, since it implies that the
surrelative containing life within it is necessarily superior to a
mere abstract absolute.

**Radically Emergent Theism**
(sometimes just called **emergent theism**, or has the word theism
replaced with any other word it leans towards) is the idea that there
is no particular self existing substance or thing that is god, but
divinity is an emergent quality the universe comes to have over time.
This emerging quality of spirituality feeds back into the world in
the way mental phenomena influence physical ones. God does not exist
in a substantial sense, but there is an increasing deification of the
world over time. God is the whole world possessing the quality of
deity. Where world is body and deity is mind. Samuel alexander
defends a concept where once there was no god but now there is only
partly god. And that there may be a more full embodiment of God in
the future. The finite god gathers up into its divine parts its whole
body. And so god is an emergent property, or perhaps verb, rather
than something that inherently exists.

Obviously some aspects of this line of
thought show up in megaten. For one, the actual gods are seen as
emanating from human minds in their tangible forms. (Though the games
are inconsistent about this. In some games it is also explicitly
clear that humans were created by gods). With explicit statements
that they will always exist as long as humans do. (obviously calling
to mind specific mental images coming from jung's vague archetypes). Note that the abstract power behind
reality of the great will itself is never particularly worshiped
directly by people other than in the context of their own systems.
(gaians saying nature / the earth, etc). Which can potentially imply
that its divinity relevant aspects are dependent on people. So if divinity is relative to the internal perspectives of people, then it is in a sense emerging.

**Emanationism** is the form of
panentheism in which all things flow forth from the first reality or
principle. Things are said to contain some of its essence inasmuch as
they relate to it. The first reality is often thought of as “God”
even though in many forms (though by no means all of them) it is not
meaningfully independently sentient. Note that if there is a sentient
godhead in emenationism, it is often considered more like the most
full embodiment of the divine qualities that all life shares than a
fundamentally different entity. Which makes the way it is looked at
and approached rather different. Emanation comes in vertical and
horizontal forms, based on whether there is a single event which
emanated reality, or whether reality exists by virtue of something
without there being a specific time it happened. Such as beliefs
where time goes back to infinity. The games do seem to imply that the
great will is some kind of first principle that emanated, yet is also
the summation of everything within existence.

**Process Theism** or
**Theocosmocentrism** is usually (though not exclusively) considered
a form of panentheism in that the divine contains the universe but is
not identical with it. It is characterized by a form of platonism
called the primordial aspect of god that exists in abstract outside
of any universe, but that is in relation with a universe that
contains a process based metaphysics within called the consequent
nature of god. Because God interacts with the changing universe, God
is changeable (that is to say, God is affected by the actions that
take place in the universe) over the course of time. However, the
abstract elements of God (goodness, wisdom, etc.) remain eternally
solid. God is generally not considered an independently sentient
entity, though this is not always clear.

**Death of God Theology** or
**Theothanatology** is a term which refers to a few things in a
general school of thought, ranging from pandeism to atheistic
post-theism to various types of pantheism or agnosticism. It is
belief in a form of use of theistic langage, but in which the
traditional monotheistic God is in some sense absent. This can
variously be interpreted as having literally died in a pre-historical
or historical event, or as a form of pantheism which posited
traditional monotheism as a necessary evolution to arrive at its
tenets, or as a synonym for post-theism, where atheism is seen as a
last step in the evolution of the religious mentality rather than as
a deviation from it. It can also be interpreted as a form of agnostic
theism in that it does not necessarily say that the monotheistic God
does not exist, but rather that it cannot be justified to be an
explicit core principle of one's theology, and so theology has to
work around this gap. It can also refer to beliefs which while
proclaiming to be monotheistic, posit God as so transcendent as to
not be able to be properly said to exist. As a distinct concept, it
was heavily influenced by transtheism.

This obviously has a lot of relevance
to megaten, in that much of the games, in various endings has to do
with humanity growing past the stage in which it can explicitly rely
on sentient gods for pre packaged meaning. (Though in-game, this
doesn't necessarily mean they don't exist but that humans can't
consider them always beneficial relevant to themselves). Yet still
remains a sense of religion and religious language. This is of course
most obvious for the law side and ending in II, where zayin hears a
voice telling him first that there is no god, but then that you have
to re-imagine your concept of god in a pantheistic light. Culminating
in the end with the literal death of YHVH, yet a continuation of
something that still presented itself as a form of continuation of
the in-game analogue to christianity.

**Gaianism** or **nature-worship** is a
similar concept to pantheism, although some would consider it a
separate belief. It is a belief that earth in and of itself should be
revered as a higher force or superorganism that all life comes from
and returns to, noting the importance of an environment to provide a
background for the arising of individual life. This is sometimes
combined with other forms of theism, or alternately some see it as
nontheistic. It is somewhat pantheistic in the looser sense, though
obviously one notes that the earth is not reality as a whole. Some
expand this of course to meaning nature at large, but the earth in
the immediate and practical sense. Obviously note that the word gaian
is used in-game for a group that does lean in this direction. (And
since its the flipside, note that Messianism is also a real word,
and means belief in a messiah, savior, or redeemer. Though one should
also note that the ones who show up in game are often artificial,
implying the dual sidedness positive and negative aspects to that
these can be self imposed roles as well as misleading ones.)

**Ultimism** is a term coned by J. L.
Schellenberg based on his idea called \*\*skeptical religion\*\*.
Ultimism, as he defines it, is more general than other religious
‘isms’ – it is the proposition that something is ultimate in
the nature of things, ultimately valuable, and the source of our
ultimate good, but the details of that something it leaves open.
Schellenberg suggests that arguments criticized as unable to support
traditional belief in God can be adapted to support skeptical
religion. This does resemble pantheism in a sense, being not about a
sentient god, but more closely resembles transtheism. Note that
ultimism posits no particular relation between this ultimate and the
world per say, and so is not necessarily pantheistic. The idea of
skeptical religion of course relates a bit to in universe megaten
religions, some of which seem at times to not think that the literal
existence of any of the gods they reference matters to what they are
getting at.

A central feature of Schellenberg’s
ideas is his suggestion that if we alter our perspective on time –
looking into the deep future as well as the deep past – we will see
that we may be at a very early stage in our development as a species
(given that it is possible that the Earth will remain habitable for
another billion years). With this vast stretch of time before us, he
asks, why would we think that our best ideas – even ideas about
religion – are behind us? At this stage in our development,
Schellenberg argues, religion of a different sort from what we have
seen before is called for. But that pure atheism as a final rejection
of the project of religion as if it had no relevance to the future is
early and naive.

**Religious naturalism** is any
approach to spirituality that is devoid of supernaturalism. The focus
is on the religious attributes of the universe/nature, the
understanding of it and our response to it (interpretive, spiritual
and moral). It is a more general term than many of the others such as
pantheism, since it is meant to be an all encompassing leaning
towards a religious mentality without belief in supernatural
interventions in nature.

**Naturalistic pantheism** is a phrase
referring to a kind of pantheism, and has been used in various ways.
It has been used to identify God or divinity with concrete things,
determinism, or the substance of the Universe. God, from these
perspectives, is seen as the aggregate of all unified natural
phenomena. Although many pantheisms are naturalistic, this term
absically exists to stress the absence of any supernatual events or
anything suspending the natural order.

**Pan-sacramentalism** is the idea that
both the natural world percentible to the scientist and our religious
experience within the world can be understood naturalistically. There
are abstract patterns within nature (similar to how evolution exists
as a process despite no single thing existing that “is”
evolution) that result in certain aspects of religious experience
being based on these abstractions and patterns within specific
contexts. And so is a natural universal law in some sense that gives
rise to religious experience when it is tapped into. This is similar
to how jung believed that his archetypes began not in the human
brain, but rather the human archetypes reflected larger patterns.
This is used to explain the existence of a very real universal shared
set of religious type expriences. Similar to how the golden spiral
will show up in nature, and exists as a real pattern, so too is there
an inherent kind of god given context and natural tendcy towards
spiritual and moral development, even without the need for a sentient
God to make sense of it.

**Animism** is the worldview that
(usually all) non-human entities—such as animals, plants, and
inanimate objects—possess a spiritual essence. Animism is used in
the anthropology of religion as a term for the belief system of some
indigenous tribal peoples, especially prior to the development of
organized religion. Although each culture has its own different
mythologies and rituals, "animism" is said to describe the
most common, foundational thread of indigenous peoples' "spiritual"
or "supernatural" perspectives. The Animistic perspective
is so fundamental, mundane, everyday, and taken-for-granted that most
animistic indigenous people do not even have a word in their
languages that corresponds to "animism" (or even
"religion"); the term is an anthropological construct.

animism can be present in more advanced
religions. And one might note that it is not necessarily inherently
pantheistic, or always seen as such. Though it is seen as such since
it seems to inherently imply distributive pantheism.

**Classical** **Pantheism**, as defined by
Charles Hartshorne in 1953, is the theological deterministic
philosophies of pantheists such as Baruch Spinoza and the Stoics. The
term has negative connotations, implicating the outdated nature of
the pantheisms defined within it. Spinoza taken literally is
something which in modern day is rarely done. He is mostly used as an
inspiration for later pantheisms which build off of his general
framework.

## Various philosophical ideas related to pantheism

This section shows a few ideas from
philosophy of mind that are relevant to pantheism. Note that all of
these ideas have showed up in megaten games in one way or another.
Many of them explicitly. The reason for this being that since megaten
is trying to strike a balance between specific religious themes, and
modern philosophical or scientific ideas, having more tangible
plausible ideas that make sense even outside of the context of
religion that one can relate in game concepts of divinity to is
useful. More information about all of these also shows up in the
philosophy of mind page.

Note of course that pantheism in
general doesn't rely on any particular one of these ideas. But due to
the fact that many struggle to see its point to begin with, many of
these ideas are associated with it to give context to what makes its
language coherent.

**Panpsychism** is the view that
consciousness, or mind is a universal feature of all things. Although
this idea is not religious, being a common position in
philosophy of mind, many historical figures considered it to
implicitly imply pantheism. Due to being similar in concept to
animism, but without the need for a dualistic concept of spiritual
essence. One of the common phrases associated with this comes form
Thales of Miletus, the oldest known western philosopher in history
who said “All Things are Full of Gods,“ meaning not explicit
gods, but abstract mind associated with them. This is a position that
may be presumed in megaten due to there being literally gods of all
things, and them talking about how they have an abstract existence
before being instantiated into tangible beings. In strange journey a
crewmember even states that some cultures think there may be gods in
everything.

Note of course that not all pantheists
are panpsychists, nor does everyone who professes panpsychism mean
anything religious sounding by it. More information on this is in the
philosophy of mind section.

**Social Organism**. In sociology, the
social organism is an ideological concept in which a society or
social structure is viewed as a “living organism." From this
perspective, typically, the relation of social features, e.g. law,
family, crime, etc., are examined as they interact with other
features of society to meet social needs. All elements of a society
or social organism have a function that maintains the stability and
cohesiveness of the organism. Although the lower concepts such as
group minds can add to this, some have even conflated the concept of
social organisms in general to the idea of a secular god. Such as
thomas hobbes.

**Panlogism** is an idea associated with hegel that considers "logos" or logic to be the ultimate reality that the universe is structured around. Although the term can also be used more generally, hegel believed that the structure of logic was so ingrained in the universe that logic and ontology were in a sense the same subject. The idea is related to the classical greek concept of the logos. Steven referring to the ultimate reality in megaten as the reason or axiom hints at the ultimate basis being in some sense a kind of logical structure that can't reasonably be denied.

**Panthelism** is a contrasting position upheld by schopenhauer, and which later influenced nietzsche that said that the ultimate reality is will. His view implied a kind of panpsychism that involves a top down emanation of will. Like with hegel, the term can be used for views outside of his own, but is most commonly associated with him. Obviously this is relevant to megaten in the sense of the great will.

Note that although these positions seem to be two distinct ones, there are also various attempts to reconcile some of them into similar concepts. Eduard von Hartmann in his work "philosophy of the unconscious" seeks to reconcile the idea of will and idea together, saying that the unconscious is not just a facet of individuals, but an absolute that is present within, and by analogy before all things. And that this encompasses both the aspects of logical structure, as well as will. This is similar to the more maximal interpretations of the collective unconscious held by jung, (who was a heavy reader of hartmann) which is of course relevant to the series not only for its ties to jung, but due to its relationship to the above ideas.

**China Brains**. In the philosophy of
mind, the China brain thought experiment (also known as the Chinese
Nation or Chinese Gym) considers what would happen if each member of
the Chinese nation were asked to simulate the action of one neuron in
the brain, using telephones or walkie-talkies to simulate the axons
and dendrites that connect neurons. Would this arrangement have a
mind or consciousness in the same way that brains do? Early versions
of this argument were put forward in 1974 by Lawrence Davis and again
in 1978 by Ned Block. Block argues that the China brain would not
have a mind, whereas Daniel Dennett argues that it would. The thought
experiment is subsumed into the larger idea of group minds.

**Group Minds** refer to minds that may
be composed of other smaller minds. I.E. that things sufficiently
functioning like a super-organism have sufficient arrangement with
which to generate their own independent mind. One of the important
things to note here is the idea of contiguism, which is the human
bias to assume that minds only exist in things that look like human
minds. But while they may function in far more abstract ways,
arguments from analogy show that no matter what we define as the way
brains work, it seems that group minds are a likely result.
Panpsychism makes this even more likely if true, but even without
panpsychism it is a high possibility.

The reason this is an important idea
related to pantheism of course is because group minds that correspond
to tangible social organisms or forces of arrangement in the world
obviously (though indirectly) correlate to tangible things that have
real effects on the people within them. For instance, if people get
together and form a church that has an ideology, then they may be
forming a level of group mind by this relation, and which also by
being an organization has a tangible effect on them for the normal
physical reasons a group normally does. As such, one might say that
there is a tangible meaningful sense in which one can say that in
some sense there is a godlike thing presiding over them, since it is
a super-mind by definition, and has tangible control over its
members. Despite itself not having any tangible sentience other than
a blind mentality. Note that in megaten itself this idea is used,
such as when steven says that the godess of tokyo is tokyo itself.
Eric Schwitzgebel, one of the main philosophers related to this idea
has confirmed that it does seem to have neo animistic aspects.

One thing to note off course is that
the point of this idea is that mind is sloppy. Its not that something
that corresponds exactly to America or whatever else will have
exactly one mind. But that minds seem to exist in networks that
certain arrangements can have specific layers of abstraction.

Note that this isn't necessarily a
totally different type of mind than your own. Just a more abstract
spread out version of something your mind is a more specific one of
that is more regulated because it exists primarily on a physical
structure that specifically grew to regulate it. In-game, the white
imply that maybe even humans function like a group mind. The white
when addressing you say ”We ask the mitochondria within you,”
implying that despite thinking of yourself as a single being, you are
still a collection.

**Quantum monism** is a modern term
that relates to the scientific understanding of the universe not as
bottom up, but a top down monistic unity that the different aspects
are emanations of. Early scientists working on quantum mechanics like
schrodinger noted that in a quantum sense you could no longer make
sense of the universe as having individual things as building blocks,
but it had to be understood as a single unity that derives from a
single quantum reality. In the modern sense it is associated with the
philosopher jonathan schaffer. This idea applies not only to our
universe and our cosmological horizon, but would even apply to other
universes. This idea is the basis for schrodinger's appearance in
DDS1 and 2, tying to schrodinger describing the world as similar in
nature to the hindu idea of brahman.

**Open individualism** is the idea that
there are no absolute borders between minds, and individual minds are
just constructs of a larger whole. Though not common in the west due
to the christian idea of distinct souls, it is a common idea in
hinduism, and some other places, and became popular in the west due
to the fathers of quantum mechanics saying that their work leads them
to think that minds do indeed work in this way. since minds are
merely abstractions of a larger global-identity, this can lead one to
consider that this global identity can properly be thought of in a
pantheistic light even if not independently sentient. (Note that you
do not have to be an open individualist to think that there is a
meaningful global identity). In at least digital devil saga, and by
extension maybe can be carried over, this idea was hinted at for both hindu and modern reasons. Though it has a parralel idea empty individualism that also is hinted at in megaten. See more about this idea
in the scientific pantheisms section below.

**Archetypes** refer to inborn
universal mental images that can evolve to internal specific images
of gods or other things in one's mind. The idea is most commonly
associated with jung, and plays a central place in the series, with
implications that demons function in some sense by being based on
archetypes. The basic idea is that humans have collective archetypes
that are patterns in the mind in the same way they have a “collective
arm.” That is, a pattern the arm takes. And that these in
individual minds evolve into god images that are semi universal due
to this. And that due to the mind not necessarily being a single
distinct thing it makes sense almost to see these as distinct
entities. However, jung also seemed to believe in them in a more
platonist, panpsychist, and pansacramentalist means in which they are
not merely things in human minds, but patterns that exist in reality
which exist in the environment at large and which gives even more
reason to not see them merely as mental images. In-game, this seems
to be how it works, with demons talking about existing abstractly in
reality, but are given form by human minds, and live there and in
some sense rely on them. But obviously also in game can instantiate
tangibly. For more about this idea read the carl jung wiki page.

**Platonism**, though also referring to
the philosophy of Plato as a whole, can also refer more generally to
the concept that there are abstract objects which exist and which are
a necessary existence. Although not all understandings of platonism
posit it as panentheistic or emanationistic, many do, or even claim
that the qualities of the “absolute” divine that people have
referred to historically ultimately refer to platonic forms, and so
it would be misguided to not consider it an inherent relation. The
archetypes of jung in the wider sense are conflated with platonism at
times, and this is a basis for certain pantheisms.

To give a more tangible Concepcion of
what platonism means, think about the fact that 1+1=2. This fact is
true, and would be even if nothing physical existed and there was no
universe. So we need some way to make sense of the fact that this
fact or pattern in reality seems to exist in the abstract. Physical
things even follow mathematical patterns, such as the golden spiral
showing up in nature. Which explains in a little more depth how the
idea of pan-sacramentalism works. Platonism is considered by far the
majority position in philosophy of math, and most mathematicians in
general seem to agree with it. Note that platonism does not only
refer to math, but other potentialities or facts. Math is simply the
easiest way to conceive of it as an idea.

**Monism** is the idea that all of
reality in some sense has or is or comes from a single substance, and
bears some aspect of it. Or alternately that the whole is prioritized
metaphysically over the parts. This word is rarely used to mean this
however, since it has many other uses which are far more common, and
would lead to confusion.

**The World Soul** is, according to
several systems of thought, an intrinsic connection between all
living things on the planet, which relates to our world in much the
same way as the soul is connected to the human body. The idea
originated with Plato and was an important component of most
Neoplatonic systems. although the term is somewhat considered
outdated in philosophy, due to philosophy downplaying use of the word
soul, it is still a concept in religion and an offhanded term that is
used, because the idea of mind existing in some abstract way on the
global level is still meaningful. Obviously in a generic enough
sense, this is more or less what the great will is. Since its an
abstract type of universal collective overmind in some sense, but
doesn't seem very independently sentient, much like how world souls
are generally (though not exclusively) seen not to be.

**Palingenesis** (sometimes called **thin survival**) is a term sometimes
used in pantheistic contexts to refer to individuals having any
relevant continuity after death. Used to separate it from religion
concepts of 1:1 reincarnation, usually by pointing out that specific
1:1 identity may not be retained, but that enough is retained for it
to not be oblivion. Similar to parfit saying that what matters is not
preservation of identity, but of something in the future being
related to you in the right way. Work on this was often done by those
affiliated with pantheism, since the concept of continuity and long
term existence is considered something that is tied in general with
religious terminology. Most pantheists do posit that in some sense
there is relevant continuity past individual life, pointing out that
to the universe life is not particularly significant, but merely a
thing part of its aspects are engaging in, which will shift, and
shift again, and continually happen in a cycle. Though there are a
lot of ways that this idea can be taken. A little information will be
provided below for the pantheists' various works on this. Note that in megaten, reincarnations often happen in a way that preserves much of your identity as well.

This too of course comes into play in
megaten. Since despite depicting many of its gods as things which are
metaphors for ideas or abstract entities more than literal tangible
ones (though in game they are obviously tangible as well) it presents
the existence of some kind of rebirth as a given in its worlds.
Though in game this often happens in a more religiously reincarnation
sense (with certain characters being born again as almost direct
analogues to their past self), it also happens in more abstract ways.
Like in devil survivor where the essence of abel is not reborn as one
being, but as latent aspects of many beings.

**Theological Realism** refers to the
idea that some thing exists in reality that has aspects such that its
proper to use the term divinity to refer to it. This term is of
course wide scale use, so it can refer to both pantheism, and any
other type of theism with sentient gods. But it exists to convert the
term into a technical one to explain what it is that distinguishes
pantheism in its more naturalistic variants from atheism. Namely that
if one is still a theological reality in terms of the use of
religious terminology, defending that it is an accurate and true way
to describe reality, that it would be factually incorrect for the
conclusion of the project of religion to be that nothing it was
describing exists in any sense analogous to what it was getting at
whatsoever.

Note that theological anti realism
wouldn't necessarily presuppose atheism. (Anti realism for any
subject in philosophy generally means that whatever is being
discussed only exists by virtue of being mind dependent. But that may
not being the same as saying it doesn't exist if you think the mind
dependent aspects are enough to say it is real). For instance some
emergent theists who don't consider it to be a form of realism or
even certain other groups might presuppose that the language of god
is still meaningful even if not an unambiguous truth about the
external world when not filtered through human minds. Pure
unambiguous atheism then might be able to be described more as
theological nihilism, which would be a subset of anti realism.

**Quietism** is a heretical doctrine
 of Christian spirituality that, in general, holds that perfection
consists in passivity (quiet) of the soul, in the suppression of human
effort so that divine action may have full play. This is a union with the divine that happens not in the afterlife, but can even apply in this life, lasting for periods or even a full lifetime. One's own will is left quiet so that god can act within you, similar to the taoist concept of action without action. God, the sole reality, lives and reigns in the
 souls of those who have undergone this mystic death, with their wills brought into full unison with the divine will. Ones in this state are also seen as not needing to perform external acts of piety, having god manifested from within. Less extreme versions of the idea are known as **semiquietism**.

Elements of this show up in the approach law has to the ideal transcendental goal of practice. In SMTII zayin has a realization that yhvh is not god, but merely a face of god. And that one can become a face of god themselves, acting in unison with the divine will. In SMTIV lilith talks about the lawful mentality as giving your mind and body completely over to god, being passive and merely acting in god's name. While this is a more semiquietist approach, not being meant to blot out one's own identity, it has a large element of becoming an extension of the divine will. Jonathan in Iv likewise said that god sought for man to become an extension of his order. And this shift is away from your personal will towards the will of the collective. The great will. Notably however, the great will is a kind of extrapolation of the needs of the many rather than a specific will, or a summary of individual wills. Shijima being literally translated as "silence" may also be related to this.

## Spinoza

**Spinoza** was a Dutch philosopher of
Sephardi/Portuguese origin, born in 1632. By laying the groundwork
for the 18th-century Enlightenment and modern biblical criticism,
including modern conceptions of the self and the universe, he came to
be considered one of the great rationalists of 17th-century
philosophy. He developed highly controversial ideas regarding the
authenticity of the Hebrew Bible and the nature of the Divine. The
Jewish religious authorities issued a cherem (excommunication)
against him, effectively excluding him from Jewish society at age 23.
His books were also later put on the Catholic Church's Index of
Forbidden Books. Spinoza's magnum opus was the posthumously published
Ethics, in which he opposed and contrasted himself against Descartes'
mind–body dualism, has earned him recognition as one of Western
philosophy's most important thinkers.

Spinoza was the beginning of pantheism
being conceptualized as a seperate theology and philosophy from
classical theism, though many argue that it is more accurate to call him a panentheist. This association was so strong that for a time
“spinozist” was used as a synonym for pantheist, and by some who
rejected pantheism as a coherent idea sometimes even used as a
synonym for atheist. While modern pantheists and philosophy in
general rarely take him fully literally, him being considered now as
part of “classical” rather than up to date pantheism, he is still
considered an important figure for establishing it as a distinct
concept, and laying out many of its aspects it would come to be known
for.

Spinoza argued that God exists and is
abstract and impersonal. He made use of many of the arguments for God
used in classical religion such as those of thomas aquinas, but
argued that the resultant God was not the God of theism, but the
abstract god of pantheism. While a common misconception is that he identified everything in reality with god, in actuality he considered everything to be finide modes that in a sense emanated from the infinite transcendent abstract substance of god. So a sharp distinction was made between the infinite potential of reality and the limited things in the world.

Spinoza's system imparted order and unity
to the tradition of radical thought, offering powerful weapons for
prevailing against "received authority." He contended that
everything that exists in Nature (i.e., everything in the Universe)
is one Reality (substance) and there is only one set of rules
governing the whole of the reality which surrounds us and of which we
are part. Spinoza viewed God and Nature as two names for the same
reality, namely a single, fundamental infinite substance (meaning "that
which stands beneath" rather than "matter") that is
the basis of the universe and of which all lesser "entities"
are actually modes or modifications. He said that all things are
determined by Nature to exist and cause effects, and that the complex
chain of cause and effect is understood only in part.

Spinoza contends that "**God or Nature**" is a being of infinitely many attributes, of which
thought and extension (physical reality) are only two. His account of
the nature of reality, then, seems to treat the physical and mental
worlds as intertwined, causally related, and deriving from the same
substance. Though every aspect of reality has these hidden infinite
attributes, humans can only see two. Modern philosophy of course
questions the confusing assumption here that infinitely many types of
substance of this nature is even a coherent claim. This flat
declaration of infinite attributes being one of the reason spinoza's
philosophy is not often taken literally in modern day. Though he is
still an inspiration for many modern pantheists. Note here that "nature" does not simply mean the physical world, but an underlying rule of reality that the physical world is a reflection of. To spinoza, individual entities are finite modes of the infinite substance.

Spinoza describes how the human mind is
affected by both mental and physical factors. He directly contests
dualism. The universal substance emanates both body and mind; while
they are different attributes, there is no fundamental difference
between these aspects. This formulation is a significant solution to
the mind–body problem known as neutral monism. (more information on
the philosophy of mind page). Spinoza's system also envisages a God
that does not rule over the universe by Providence in which God can
make changes, but a God which itself is the deterministic system of
which everything in nature is a part. Spinoza argues that "things
could not have been produced by God in any other way or in any other
order than is the case."

Although god is not an entity, and does not have intelligence proper, God does in a sense have an intellect, for Spinoza, but the contents of the divine
intellect do not differ in any way, shape, or form from the actual
things that exist in the world. Just as mental and physical content are two sides of the same coin, the mental aspect of god is the other mental aspect of the world in general. This to him was tied to him defending that his god in a sense did have omnipotence and omniscience, though these words meant something different to him than in classical religion.

Namely, the point here being that there
is ultimately one primary substance in reality, and distinct things
are only a construct of its emanations. he directly challenges a personal God which actively responds to events in the universe. No amount of
prayer or ritual will sway God. Only knowledge of God, or the
existence which humans inhabit, allows them to best respond to the
world around them. Not only is it impossible for two infinite
substances to exist (two infinities being absurd to him), God—being the
ultimate substance—cannot be affected by anything else, or else it
would be affected by something else, and not be the fundamental
substance. It is these means he derived that reality in general had
the properties to be considered both God, and the only substance.
(Note that the idea that there cannot be two distinct infinities is
outdated and incorrect. For instance, even and odd numbers).

Spinoza's philosophy has much in common
with Stoicism inasmuch as both philosophies sought to fulfil a
therapeutic role by instructing people how to attain happiness.
However, Spinoza differed sharply from the Stoics in one important
respect: he utterly rejected their contention that reason could
defeat emotion. On the contrary, he contended, an emotion can only be
displaced or overcome by a stronger emotion. For him, the crucial
distinction was between active and passive emotions, the former being
those that are rationally understood and the latter those that are
not. He also held that knowledge of true causes of passive emotion
can transform it to an active emotion, thus anticipating one of the
key ideas of Sigmund Freud's psychoanalysis.

**Survival after death** according to
Spinoza in the final pages of his Ethics, the one substance can
allegedly retain or retrieve a something from the mind of a human
being that no longer exists in time. He says: “The mind can neither
imagine anything, nor recollect past things, except while the body
endures. Nevertheless, in God there is necessarily an idea that
expresses the essence of this or that human body, under a species of
eternity [sub specie aeternitatis]. The human mind cannot be
absolutely destroyed with the body, but something of it remains which
is eternal.

What this means to him is that the mind
functions like a set of properties that in life you add to. But that
after death, while these are not reinstated in you as an actual
distinct being, they exist in reality at large in the same way that
it can reinstatiate the property of "circular." Since you
are a sub aspect of God, so it would not make sense to think if
yourself as a single discrete being, and so these aspects that
functioned as part of you are still related to you in a sense by
being still around. He does not expand on this much, leaving it as a
few throwaway lines. So it is not clear what his full thoughts were.
Though it does resemble later thinkers to some extent.

**Ethics**. In the universe anything
that happens comes from the essential nature of objects, or of
God/Nature. According to Spinoza, reality is perfection. If
circumstances are seen as unfortunate it is only because of our
inadequate conception of reality. Given Spinoza's insistence on a
completely ordered world where "necessity" reigns, Good and
Evil in the smaller sense have no absolute distinct meaning. The
world as it exists looks imperfect only because of our limited
perception. And ultimately the whole is good. While aspects of this
perspective are still useful, such as seeing the whole as good even
if parts are bad, it is still rejected as detrimental due to
presenting individual bads as unavoidable parts of the good,
lessening their impact. Later pantheists criticized this perspective
as leading to nihilism, since one might come to the assumption that
nothing they do matters, since all within god is good.

His concept of "conatus"
states that human beings' natural inclination is to strive toward
preserving an essential being, and asserts that virtue/human power is
defined by success in this preservation of being by the guidance of
reason as one's central ethical doctrine. According to Spinoza, the
highest virtue is the intellectual love or knowledge of
God/Nature/Universe.

**The pantheism controversy** was an
event in German cultural history that lasted between 1785–1789
which had an impact throughout Europe. Jacobi claimed that Spinoza's
doctrine was pure materialism, because all Nature and God are said to
be nothing but extended substance. This, for Jacobi, was the result
of Enlightenment rationalism and it would finally end in absolute
atheism. Mendelssohn disagreed with Jacobi, saying that there is no
actual difference between theism and pantheism. The entire issue
became a major intellectual and religious concern for European
civilization at the time, which Immanuel Kant rejected, as he thought
that attempts to conceive of transcendent reality would lead to
antinomies in thought.

The attraction of Spinoza's philosophy
to late eighteenth-century Europeans was that it provided an
alternative to materialism, atheism, and deism. People liked the
concept of unity which it implied, as well as considering it more
personal than other nonreligious alternatives such as deism which
posted god as remote and unrelated to the world.Spinoza's "God
or Nature" (Deus sive Natura) provided a living, natural God, in
contrast to Isaac Newton's first cause argument and the dead
mechanism of Julien Offray de La Mettrie's work, Man a Machine.
Coleridge and Shelley saw in Spinoza's philosophy a religion of
nature.

Spinoza was considered by many at this
time to be an atheist because he used the word "God" (Deus)
to signify a concept that was different from that of traditional
Judeo–Christian monotheism. "Spinoza expressly denies
personality and consciousness to God; he has neither intelligence,
feeling, nor will; he does not act according to purpose, but
everything follows necessarily from his nature, according to law...."
Thus, Spinoza's cool, indifferent God is the antithesis to the
concept of an anthropomorphic, fatherly God who cares about humanity.
In a letter to Henry Oldenburg Spinoza wrote: "as to the view of
certain people that I identify god with nature (taken as a kind of
mass or corporeal matter), they are quite mistaken". For
Spinoza, our universe (cosmos) is a mode under two attributes of
Thought and Extension. God has infinitely many other attributes which
are not visibly present in our world. Some questioned whether that
made him more of a panentheist. But this is usually not seen to be
the case, since these aspects are not seen as distinct from the
world, but rather invisible.

Discussion over pantheism's status as a
distinct position from theism and atheism has gone on even to today.
It is often misunderstood as a concept because in academic terms, it
relies on specific concepts to distinguish it in ways that the more
relatively simple theistic and atheistic claims do not. To understand
what is actually being gotten at then is often hard for many to
follow who may dismiss it offhand.

## Process Theism

**Process Theism** is a type of
panentheism developed from Alfred North Whitehead's (1861–1947)
process philosophy, most notably by Charles Hartshorne (1897–2000)
and John B. Cobb. Process theology and process philosophy are
collectively referred to as "process thought." Although
many of the names associated with it are relatively unknown in wider
culture, it is notable in that it was the main philosophical
formulation associated with the word panentheism for most of the
1900s. And even today is considered one of the most important forms,
if not the most important form for the idea. Though some aspects of
it are swapped out for more up to date philosophical understandings
of the concepts. For instance, whitehead was writing at the dawn of
quantum physics, and so while his ontology conforms to it slightly,
there are updates which would have to be made. Many thigns in this
section refer to process theists from across the 1900s, so while some
of it is still modern, individual aspects are obviously up for grabs.

Whitehead's movement to panentheism is
an interesting story, since he was originally a hard atheist (being
the teacher of bertrand russel of noted atheist fame), until his work
in metaphysics convinced him that the most accurate way to describe
reality bears so many connotations of what is normally conceived of
as god that atheism is not really a meaningful concept, due to god
being an accurate descriptor without needing to reference religious
tradition. Among other reasons, Whitehead believes that God is
metaphysically necessary as a distinct concept, because God preserves
the past; is the ontological ground, or “somewhere” of the
eternal objects; is the source of order, novelty, and limitation in
worldly occasions; and is the highest level of relation within
reality. Or in other words, is something like an ordering logos or
data system that holds together the potentiality and relation within
reality. Some later process theists point out that panentheism is in
some sense a middle ground between theism and atheism, and that while
they consider it theism its “point” is not necessarily that
atheists are wrong about there being no theistic god, but rather that
they miss the point when thinking that the christian god is the only
thing that the concept was getting at, rather than what they thought
its form happened to be.

Whitehead believed that the goal of
religion was to take deeply felt emotions and contextualize them
within a system of general truths about the world, helping people to
identify their wider meaning and significance. For Whitehead,
religion served as a kind of bridge between philosophy and the
emotions and purposes of a particular society. It is the task of
religion to make philosophy applicable to the everyday lives of
ordinary people. He took special care to note that while religion is
often a good influence, it is not necessarily good – an idea which
he called a "dangerous delusion." Whitehead saw religion as
a system of general truths that transformed a person's character. But
had both an individual and a social aspect. He argued that life is an
internal fact for its own sake before it is an external fact relating
to others. His most famous remark on religion is that "religion
is what the individual does with his own solitariness... and if you
are never solitary, you are never religious."

For a contrasting less common
interpretation of process philosophy, read the R M Hare section in
the heterodox christian page.

**Dipolar Theism**. Process theology
refers to God as “dipolar”—having two “poles” or “natures”
These are known as the \*\*primordial nature of god\*\*, and the
\*\*consequent nature of god\*\*. The primordial nature of God refers to
the infinite potential of reality, and abstract objects. (I.E.
mathematical facts, universals of possibilities, etc). These exist in
abstract form outside of any instantiation. It is here in which the
properties of goodness rest. Though this might sound odd, note that
the general philosophical consensus is that abstract objects do
exist. Note that this idea is similar to plato's concept of forms.
Enough that Plato's timaeus is even used as a pseudo creation story
by process theists to explain the relation of potential to the world.

The consequent nature of god refers to
the tangible world, which exists as an instantiation of certain
bundles of potential. Since the world necessarily exists in process,
which potential is instantiated of course changes all the time. This
is not usually seen as an independently existing entity, but is still
thought of as one, due to bearing the full summation of the
individual things within which are really just abstractions of the
whole, rather than the other way around. Hartshorne uses the concept
of the cell's relation to a person to explain the relation of
individuals to God. An important disanalogy is that the universe,
unlike a body within the universe, has no environment external to
itself. Thus, in the divine case, the “body” of God and the
“environment” in which God operates are one and the same.
Hartshorne expresses this idea by saying that God’s “environment”
is wholly internal. He adds that the disanalogy explains why there
are no specialized organs—such as liver, heart, and brain—in the
divine body as there must be in a localized body. Specialized organs
allow a localized body to monitor itself in its relation to its
environment, but there is no other environment for God to negotiate
except the universe. But that this does not change that there exists
a highest level of relation.

Process theism is also naturalistic.
Process theism explicitly denies the possibility of violations of the
natural order, because causality involves process, and the concept of
a “fake” step in the chain is violating the nature of a process
based reality. (Note that one can deny the separate primordial
nature's existence while still being a different type of process
theist. The consequent nature alone is enough to make sense of it.
Though then one would only be a pantheist rather than panentheist).

There is sometimes expanded to include
a third aspect called the Superjective nature of god. Basically this
is the extrapolation of an ideal future or path. This ideal path is
called an ideal consequent. God inherently provides ideals as related
to the actual world. And this is the creation of morality as
different locations within reality inherently project an ideal future
from them. This is not placed alongside the other two, since it is
often seen as a construct, or something that only exists relatively
as an important relation between them. Compare it to the concept of
te in taoism, existing as the aspect of the tao that relates to human
morality, but which is dynamic and flowing.

**Process**. One of the basic
propositions of process philosophy, and the process theism that came
from it is that what exists is necessarily process. Static objects
are not the fundamental nature of reality, but process is actually
more fundamental, and processes bear things rather than the other way
around. The basic reality is events rather than substances. This
actually corresponds well to modern scientific conceptions of OSR,
which points out that in modern physics structure is prior to
substance, and structure's movement through time is process, which is
necessary to think of in terms of process in systems theory. However,
modern osr is not entirely identical to whitehead's original
formulation. But this is no large issue for process theism, since
being a philosophy based perspective it can accommodate updates.
(Note this process approach matches both with megaten's data
structure based metaphysics, as well as its eastern metaphysics
associations. Making this a good basis to relate it to).

**Relation**. Process philosophy also
holds horizontal structure to exist in the sense of relation. It
implies that relation exists to make sense of larger objects existing
as distinct patterns through the process. All things necessarily
exist in relation. And God is not an exception to basic ontological
rules but is their chief exemplification. What this means is that the
consequent nature of God is the highest order of relation, that of
the universe at large. Like other monistic views, it places primacy
on this, with individual things derived from the whole. Individual
things in reality relate to the abstract potential in the same way
the consequent nature of God does. However, it being the whole is
considered the big picture approach, and so why the term god is used
for it.

**Societies**. The enduring objects one
perceives with the senses (for example, rocks, trees, persons, etc.)
are made up of serially ordered “societies,” or strings of
momentary actual occasions, each flowing into the next and giving the
illusion of an object that is continuously extended in time, much
like the rapid succession of individual frames in a film that appear
as a continuous picture. Societies are special relations of process
that work into a meaningful distinct system within reality.

**Surrelativism** is a term that means
supreme relativism. It exists to explain the relation between the
relative (aspects of reality) and the absolute (the primordial
nature). Since abstract objects are not entities, they can have no
experience. And so while they provide the potential for value they
are not inherently valuable in themselves. This means that the
summation of value lies in the consequent nature of God. That is,
physical reality. The relative being considered more valuable than
the absolute alone. This leads to a radically world centered focus.
Since value tangibly exists in real life, since God is immanent in
the world. In contrast with the otherworldly focused attitude of some
classical religions. They note that even if a heaven existed, it
would still be part of the relative, rather than the absolute.
(Though most process theists being naturalists do not believe in a
distinct heaven).

**Creativity** is the power of any
instant or process to bring forth the following one, and for tangible
existing things to exist in general. Related to causality, and
necessary to explain the flow of existence. Process theists have
noted that this is similar to paul tillich's concept of the power of
being, which allows for the existence of being. And so that is often
considered a compatible approach to divinity. Note that creativity
flows from every aspect of reality, and so people are considered
included in this, their future states emanating from their past via
causality.

**Christ**. Process theology, being
naturalistic, does not see Jesus as inherently someone different than
any other being. Process theology views Jesus Christ as different in
degree but not in kind from other creatures. His “divinity”
consists of his embodying the self-expressive activity of God
(“Logos”). What this means is that just like any other way that
specific potentialities are instantiated, Jesus instantiated
qualities we associate with divinity through his actions. This does
not mean in a magic sense, but is a kind of moral claim of his
ability to reflect the nature of God and divinity to us through
radical action. This of course reflects heavily how megaten sees god
and its faces of god.

**Panexperientialism** or
**psychicalism**. Process philosophy generally holds to a form of
panpsychism it calls panexperientialism, which states that all
individual actual entities—from electrons to human persons—
possess the ability to experience the world around them. However,
even though whitehead considered the basic building blocks to be
actual entities, he did not consider every relation to be one which
has independent experience, privileging only tangible things with
brains. Although actual entities possess experience, it is not
necessarily conscious experience. Whitehead argues that consciousness
presupposes experience and not vice versa. Some aspects of his
panpsychism are updated in modern process theism, due to the seeming
flip flop between panpsychism and emergentism. Charles harthshorne
points out that each point in space can have an intrinsic value
associated with it, due to having some kind of mentality, albeit one
that is very small.

**Regnant**. Although the system is a
monistic one, which is characterized by experience going “all the
way down” to the simplest and most basic actualities, there is a
duality between the types of organizational patterns to which
societies of actual occasions might conform. In some instances,
actual occasions will come together and give rise to a “regnant”
or dominant society of occasions. The most obvious example of this is
when the molecule-occasions and cell-occasions in a body produce, by
means of a central nervous system, a distinct unified mind. This mind
prehends all the feeling and experience of the billions of other
bodily occasions and coordinates and integrates them into higher and
more complex forms of experience. The entire society that supports
and includes a dominant member is, to use Hartshorne’s term, a
compound individual.

**Personal order**. Because of his
process view of reality, Whitehead himself rarely ever spoke of
personal identity. He preferred instead, personal order: "A
nexus enjoys ‘personal order’ when it is a ‘society,’ and
when the genetic relatedness of its members orders these members
‘serially.’" In explicating the intent of his meaning, a
broad understanding of his metaphysical system as a whole is
indispensable, along with a more detailed examination of his
innovative terminology. The term "serially" gives us a clue
to the most important aspect of Whitehead's philosophy of organism:
that of succession or temporality. He denied identity can be used to
make sense of continuity, since in a real sense you tomorrow are a
slightly different thing than you today.

**Perception** and **Prehension** To
whitehead, Every actual occasion receives data from every other
actual occasion in its past by means of prehension. Whitehead calls
the process of integrating this data by proceeding from indeterminacy
to determinacy “concrescence.” Concrescence typically consists of
an occasion feeling the entirety of its past actual world, filtering
and selecting some data for relevance, and integrating, combining,
and contrasting that original data with novel data in increasingly
complex stages until the occasion becomes fully actual. This process
of synthesis involves distilling the entire past universe down into a
single moment of particular experience. After an occasion reaches
satisfaction, it becomes an objectively immortal datum for all future
occasions, creating more future. (Note the use of the word data here,
like in DDS and triangulum).

**Contributionism** is the process
philosophy based form of utilitarianism, but has a different name
since it claims to be based on different premises. Most process
theists do lean towards utilitarianism or a more general consequentialism, though they may have
different formulations for it. Contributionism claims to be distinct
from regular utilitarianism by saying that you need to make sense of
an abstract summed universal value associated with all reality to
make sense of the greatest good for the greatest number. Since
otherwise those facts about individual people will be distinct and
unable to be accounted for as a single moral ability to determine
whether an action is good. Since it holds the consequent nature of
God as the universal summation of reality, it also functions as a
record of moral value in reality. It is the bearer of the total
reality of happiness and suffering in reality that distinguishes
which actions are better than others. And since the whole is primary
relative to the parts, it makes focusing on the whole the core of
morality in general. In practice, process theists only had vague
writings on morality, and sometimes flip flopped about what theories
they supported. So despite the utilitarian associations, it is not
explicitly exclusively utilitarian. And one who seeks to learn about
utilitarianism should read more utilitarian ethics writings.

Note that the fact that utilitarianism
in general has a big picture universal perspective (sometimes being
called the point of view of the universe) it makes sense that law
associates it with an abstract universal god, and calls it the
collective dispensation of the universe. Since its morality based on
the big picture of reality taken as a collective. In fact this
contributionist vision of combining panentheism and utilitarianism is
probably one of the closest depictions to how law thinks of its own
morality in game in general.

**Religious pluralism**. One of the
main projects of process theology is to point out that like
everything else, theological understanding of the world must
necessarily be in process. And as such must update to understand the
latest scientific and philosophical understandings of the times.
Which is one reason why process theology itself often updates. It
does however, believe that it can and should encorporate old
understandings into new formats to provide continuity with past
traditions. process theology talks about the need for a non
relativisitic pluralism or \*\*complementary pluralism\*\*, as opposed to
relativistic pluralism. Meaning that it is meaningless and naive to
insist that all religions were merely talking about the same thing.
But rather that they might have been undercovering complementary
truths about different aspects of reality, that can be synthesized in
a larger whole. They divided the three focuses of different religions
and their ultimates into theistic, cosmic, and acosmic. Which they
can can ultimately refer to different focuses of reality in a
complementary way. For instance, it relates the buddhist concepts of
emptiness and not self to the process concept of creativity, and
events as primary. Noting that this is a different focus than the
aspects of reality a christian was focusing on with modern process
analogues. And so religious dialogue and tradition can be used to
flow seamlessly into modern philosophy to create a new religious
paradigm. One that preserves rather than destroys religious identity.

**Objective immortality**. Process
theism is not known for writing about post death survival as much as
some other pantheisms. But it does have a few aspects. One of these
is the concept of objective immortality. While some do believe in
subjective immortality post death for the reasons listed in the other
pantheistic sections, some instead argue for what they call objective
immortality. One has objective immortality because their experiences
live on forever in God, who contains all that was. After an occasion
reaches satisfaction, it becomes an objectively immortal datum for
all future occasions. What this means is a little ambiguous, and can
be taken multiple ways in terms of whether it means reinstantiation
in other events versus existing as a record of data and value in a
non experiential sense.

## Fechner

**Gustav Theodor Fechner** was a German
philosopher, physicist and experimental psychologist who lived in the
1800s. An early pioneer in experimental psychology and founder of
\*\*psychophysics\*\*, he inspired many 20th century scientists and
philosophers. He is also credited with demonstrating the non-linear
relationship between psychological sensation and the physical
intensity of a stimulus via the formula: S = K ln I , which became
known as the Weber–Fechner law. Fechner has been cites as
inspirational and as something one wanted to continue the project of
by both the process theists as well as some of the scientific
pantheists.

Fechner's world concept was highly
animistic, based on panpsychism. He felt the thrill of life
everywhere, in plants, earth, stars, the total universe. Man stands
midway between the souls of plants and the souls of stars, who he
said one should look at as angels. God, the soul of the universe, was
likewise conceived of as having a highest level of relation, though
not independent existence. Natural laws are just the modes of the
unfolding of God's perfection. In his last work Fechner, aged but
full of hope, contrasts this joyous "**daylight view**" of
the world with the dead, dreary "**night view**" of
emergentist materialism. Charles Hartshorne saw him as a predecessor
on his and Alfred North Whitehead's philosophy and regretted that
Fechner's philosophical work had been neglected for so long. What he
is mainly known for is being one of the main and first attempts to
detail his pantheistic vision through the lens of science, which
would again come up heavily in the fathers of quantum mechanics.
Though much of this was him detailing identity, and saying that
science gives rise to the idea of life after death.

Fechner says that men live on earth
three times. the first always sleeping, the second sleeping and
waking, and the third always waking. Referring to before birth,
birth, and after death. Though this is meant to be poetic, what he is
attempting to say is that life generates your own self identity,
which is then on death released back into the world. And that past
death you exist as an abstraction mixed into the world in general,
yet your distinct identity as a person who existed tangibly in the
past still effects people via causality indirectly. People exist as
“physical spirits” in the sense that their composites still
exist, and their properties still exist, and effect things in the
world, allowing for an abstract existece through other beings in a
physical sense even though they lost their body.

According to fechner our bodies are
just wavelets on the surface of the earth as leaves grow on a tree,
and our consciousess arises out of the whole earth consciousness just
as within our consciousness an empathetic experience arises and makes
us forget the whole background of experience without which it could
not have come. But as it sinks again into the background it is not
forgotten. on the contrary, it is remembered, and as remembered,
leads a freer life, for now it combined, itself a conscious idea with
the innumerable equally conscious ideas of other remembered things.
even so it is when we die, with the whole system of our outlived
experiences. during the life of our body, although they were always
elements in the more general enveloping earth consciousness yet they
were unmindful of the fact. Now impressed on the whole earth-mind as
memories they lead the life of ideas there, and realize themselves no
longer in isolation, but along with all the similar vestiges left by
other human lives, entering with these into new combinations affected
anew by experiences of the living, and affecting the lives of the
living in their turn. Or in other words, you can imagine people as if
they were the thoughts of god, which still remain after being thought
in memory and as a part of the whole world-brain.

He says: While the higher spirits not
only dwell in individual men, but each extends itself into many,
(like jungian archetypes) it is they who unite these men spiritually,
whether of one form of faith or truth, of one moral or political
leaning. All men who have any spiritual fellowship with each other
belong to the body of one and the same spirit together, and follow
the ideal which has thereby been born within them, as members one of
another. Often an idea lives at one time in a whole nation, often is
a mass of men moved to one and the same action; that is a mighty
spirit which seizes them all in one contagious influence. Not alone,
indeed, through the spirits of the dead do these alliances occur, but
countless new-born ideas flow from the living to the living; all
these ideas, however, which go forth from the living into the world
are already parts of its future spiritual organism

According to him, the whole form and
evolution of consciousness will depend on the rise and fall of this
wave above a threshold. These ebbs and flows effect how our
properties will exist in those still living, and thus how we exist in
the abstract sense after death. this resembles parfits idea of people
taking on eachother's properties and partial identity), though
fechner does not state what he thinks the relevant facts of identity
are. The dead don't appear outwardly to the living, but dwell in
their innermost souls, and think and act through them. Since the dead
are akin to the thoughts of the still existing God that flow into the
future via causality. Even during life we grow into eachother, but
the loss of distinct body loses our distinct identity transforming us
fully into this abstract unity. A good example of a soul that lives
on is christ. its not an empty saying that christians say he is still
with them, but a literal one, since they bear his properties and he
acts indirectly through them.

He believed that inner experience is
the nature of reality most close to its fundamental nature, and
matter is just the form inner experiences take when interacting with
eachother from the outside. fechner calls this psychophysical
movement. Interestingly this can be seen as any number of views
including neutral monism and even physicalism if one considers
physical information processing to be what thoughts are, and
corresponds it to the OSR of modern physics.

He argues that the law of conservation
of energy in physics must therefore relate to mind since the mind is
one with the physical. And there is an analogous reason that minds
can never be erased. Not only can you not die if you live, but for
you to be able to come into existence is incoherent, and so the
mental content that composes you must be pre existing in some sense.
It is merely that when you become a single person it creates a new
self identity. Likewise, if you can come into existence one time as a
distinct being you theoretically can many times if on a long enough
time scale and your properties all once again realign. The
consciousness with which a child awakes at birth is only part of the
eternal pre existing divine consciousness which has concentrated in a
new soul. he says that you are afraid that as you came out of the
universal consciosness you'll go back into it, losing all value from
your own lived life. But as tree branches don't go back into trees,
as time develops, your own individuality is in some sense preserved.

He notes that doctors call images of
ghosts hallucinations, and they aren't wrong, but they are also real
in some sense, since they are part of mental content overlapping with
you. (similar to jungs archetypes) spirits in some sense exist within
you effecting you, and you them, in abstract form. Namely that the
reason you see a ghost of someone you knew after all is a line of
causality from them. Note that he doesn't think that this makes it
literally still them, but as a reflection of the still existing
nature of the fact that they existed in the first place. Much of this
involves poetic ways to frame a difficult to grasp reality into
something more easy to digest.

## Schopenhauer

**Schopenhauer** was a German
philosopher. He is best known for his 1818 work The World as Will and
Representation, in which he characterizes the phenomenal world as the
product of a blind, insatiable, and malignant metaphysical will. He
is often contrasted with fechner, as they have very similar views,
except that where fechner saw this as positive, schopenhauer saw
reality and life as negative, and something that would be better not
to have to live. Though he is considered important for pantheistic
concepts, and often read by pantheists; due to his negative view of
reality, he did not call himself pantheist, seeing the universal will
not as divine, but as a malignant though blind force. Schopenhauer is also a large influence on jung, and his idea of the collective unconscious in its wider interpretations. And so gives some context for understanding the series.

Like fechner, he saw you as an
abstraction of a whole that goes on forever, (being the one who
brought that idea to the west, and commonly cited by those since him
who talk on the matter. More information on open individualism is
above) and so death not as total erasure, but as a loss of immediate
identity, with your fundamental essence being recycled into new life.
But he saw this as fundamentally horrifying, since it means you would
never be able to escape existence. He says: "There is not a
grain of dust, not an atom that can become nothing, yet man believes
that death is the annhilation of his being." Obviously his
worldview resembles the white in some sense, seeking to escape the
negative pain of existence, but finding it impossible, and so having
to act in light of this. Though in practice he was somewhat
altruistic, seeking to lessen the unending suffering of others for
this reason. But was also very elitist, even getting kicked out of
school, for insulting teachers openly.

**The will to life** is the central
aspect of his philosophy. He saw it as a global identity that
individuals are mere constructs of. He notes that it is not literally
just a will, but since will is the most developed aspect of reality,
and it contains all reality it makes sense to describe it in this
way, by its most important aspect. And that a word like “force”
would sound too impersonal, but the word will makes it knowable
immediately as the aspect of reality that we are part of. Since it
does contain will. The will resides not just in human and animals but
all nature. The thing in itself is never an object but all objects
are its phenomena. It is called the will to life since it strives for
live and preservation and impulse, and by this means brings people to
suffering. He relates it to the hindu idea of brahman, to point out
that the will is not only in all things, but in some sense the entire
thing is via universal natural laws.

He also says that the will is not
guided by reason but exists before it. And reason is subordinate to
will. The part of the will exists within you makes you cling to life,
which brings you suffering. However reason can overcome the will,
known as denial of the will. He associated this ability to overcome
it with saints and ascetics of various religions, followed to a
lesser extent by philosophers and intellectuals and artists who via
art can try to comprehend the world objectively as an observer and
defeat the will via intillect. Who denied the impulses that bring you
suffering. the will is constantly in conflict with itself. and tries
to snatch more matter for itself. even in inert objects there will be
different fores like attraction and repulsion. We should not desire
individuality, since it is in life we find suffering, but by denying
individuality we can overcome our will, due to erasing our desire for
and compliance with individual impulse.

Seeing individuality as illusory in
some sense, he says “Dying is the moment of that liberation from
the one sidedness of... and individuality which does not constitute
the innermost kernel of our being.” He says that physical things by
nature have structures that become inward focused, and this is what
creates personal identity. But these distinctions are pragmatic
rather than fundamental. The higher levels of abstraction provide
more of the construct of individuality. In matter none is found. In
animals some is, but not much. In humans much is. Noting that more
intelligence convinces things they are more distinct. Even though
they are not. Nature is indifferent to the fact that we think of life
and death as distinct, and they do not erase us but merely make us
lose our identity, only to have our will recycled to new life. He
notes that the reason it is natural for us to think we live after
death is because life is extinguished but not the principle of life.
all human beings have a feeling of something imperishable to them
despite knowing death is certain. but don't know what the
imperishable is. since we can only know the will as it enters into
consciousness, what it is inside is unknown. At the same time we fear
death, since the will strives for individuality.

He also related his philosophy to
buddhism, though he does take it out of context, spinning the
buddhist four noble truths as about intense suffering rather than the
existence of suffering in general. He considers buddhism and hinduism
and christianity to have good tools for defeating the will. Though he
does reject the christian creation story, due to the apparent
contradiction of a good god creating a world filled with suffering,
and calling it good. Instead preferring Zoroastrian dualistic ones,
or buddhist ones where no one is at fault. He considers overcoming
the will akin to nirvana, and the only way to achieve a peaceful
life.

Obviously note that as far as megaten
goes, schopenhauer is one of the most notable people to refer to the
fundamental universal principle as the will. Schopenhauer may also be used to contextualize chaos to some degree, since his focus kind of comes off like a kind of inverted pantheism that to some degree involves defeating the universal principle, and in nocturne this is likewise the tone chaos presents itself with.

**Palingenesis** is a term he began
using as a mid point between reincarnation and ceasing to exist.
Saying that it is not like religious reincarnation since you don't
retain your full self, but what happens is your identity is lost but
your essence lives on going into new life. The word palingenesis has
since been used past his time to refer to more secular concepts of
continuity after death.

## Kyoto School - Nishida Kitarō

**The Kyoto School** is the name given
to the Japanese philosophical movement centered at Kyoto University
that assimilated western philosophy and religious ideas and used them
to reformulate religious and moral insights unique to the East Asian
cultural tradition." It was founded by Kitarō Nishida, who
wrote a book detailing with metaphysics and phenomenology that
constructed a kind of panentheistic paradigm based on eastern
religious metaphysics, but updated for use in the secular world and
outside the bounds of explicit religion. One cornerstone aspect of
the school is **Meontology**, the philosophical study of nonbeing.
Note that this is the basis behind the main modern japanese school of
philosophy, and so is likely a very important inspiration behind the
worldview that leads to megaten games. Although there are a lot of
things he touches on, we will stick with the most relevant
pantheistic aspects.

The basis of what he calls God is pure
nothingness. This name is a little misleading, since while it
emphasizes that it is not a thing or being in any sense, it presumes
an inherent structure of the power of being that things arise from
giving context to reality. Emphasis is given that this is not a being
in the catholic sense of God as highest being. It is compared with
mathematical laws or laws of the universe, or the unity of a painting
come together. God is seen as the ultimate of both being and
nonbeing, being both the nothingness from which things arise, and the
unification of the things themselves.

People are seen both as individuals,
but their self is part of the great self that is god. Note that god
has the dual aspect of being the nothingness from which things
emerge, as well as the totality of things. This dual identity of the
self of individuals being the main aspect and the self of god as
whole is compared with taoist logic where seeming contradictions are
resolved in the big picture. This is also compared with the hindu
comparison of atman and brahman, pointing out that the unity of
individuals is reflected in the higher unity of god, which is very
close to how schrodinger likewise compared his ideas to brahman.
Individuality and universality are not considered opposites, but
mutually interdependent. Since distinct things can only develop from
a paradigm of one original whole.

The myriad things are considered one
system, and morality is seen as being derived from your actions
shifting from selfish egoism to being one with the universal, and so
focusing on the good of the universal. Which sounds like a lawful
slant that ancient of days says in IV. However, in contrast, he also
says ethics wise that someone without personal interests can't
project it outwards, and so would have an easy time killing. Which
sounds anti law. In practice he considered virtue ethics to be the
correct form of ethics, despite making utilitarian arguments that to
find out what morality is one must find out what is good for the self
and universalize it. In this sense, the eastern aspect of tying
ethics and metaphysics more closely together than the west comes in,
and they are seen as aspects of one subject. Love joins two
personalities, but God is the joininf of all, despite aknowledging
their individuality, since God is infinite love. And one taps into
the big picture of ethics towards the world at large by tapping into
the perspective of God.

Each of the individual unities of
people in the phenomena of the universe are none other than god's
self awareness. The relation between god and the world is like the
unity of consciousness and its content. Where the spiritual aspect of
god is the parallel to the big picture of the mental in a way that
god as the world is for the many physical things. And this relation
is that between whole and part. When describing this he actually uses
the phrase **great will**, among other terms beginning with great.
And so is likely the place that the term used in megaten games
ultimately came from. Likewise things like mathmatical facts across
time are part of self awareness of god. (Note one can relate this to
archetypes in game, and thus demons). Since God does not experience
time, or have a specific structure of a brain God has no memory or
specific hopes and thus no self consciousness, but is a force that
contains the individual thoughts of individual people. God has no
self awareness, since there is no outside forces which it must
protect itself from. This concept is likely based on the zen concept of the one mind, which has information on the buddhism page.

God however is not an abstract idea,
but a true unity like ourselves. We can't totally comprehend it since
we are small, but the religious experience is born from our sensing
of this larger connection. Since we exist as part of this whole,
absolute death is not possible, and we become aware of this when
realizing our place as a small part of reality, that cycles back into
god when we lose our individuality.

## Scientific Pantheism

Scientific pantheism is not an official
term, but is often used to refer to those who come to pantheism
through scientific understandings. This does not necessarily mean
exclusively scientific means of course, but can mean a combination of
science and philosophical understandings. This section will mainly be
used to refer to some of the founders of quantum mechanics and their
views, as well as a few other relevant scientists. For more
information relevant to Scientific pantheism, check out the
parralels between modern physics and eastern
philosophy on the physics page.
Note that some of these figures despite being founders of QM are not
very well known by name. And there are other examples, though the
list need not grow very long.

**Schrodinger** is by far the most
developed of the founders of quantum mechanics in terms of relating
it to pantheism. Being so well known, that he was referenced directly
in digital devil saga as the character schrodinger, which is a
reference not just to schrodinger's cat, but to his influence from
the upanishads, and his perspectives in general. Schrodinger often
used religious symbolism in his work, saying that it was, and science
in general was in a sense an approach to the godhead by trying to
uncover the secrets inherent in reality. Though he kept his
pantheistic writings distinct from his physics, often denying that
they were based on it due to not wanting people who doubted them to
have it overlap towards doubting the at the time incomprehensible to
most people aspects of quantum mechanics due to how new they were.
But through the lens of history it has become more obvious what he
was getting at, and what aspects of his physics it was that led to
this. He often read and discussed the upanishads with borh and
heisenberg, relating their work to aspects of it. Noting that what
they were discovering was only counter intuitive to the western mind,
but the eastern mind in some sense saw closer to that way already. His understanding viewed through the lens of physics later came to be known as quantum monism.

Schrodinger was lead by his work in
physics to believe that our concepts of distinct things was in some
sense not tenable any longer, and so we needed to make sense of
things in terms of the whole of the system of reality, and its
interrelations. He realized that this might also have ramifications
in terms of personal identity, and so came to think that we can't
think of individuals as fundamentally distinct either, due to being
continuous. Most clearly expressed in his phrasing "Multiplicity
is only apparent, in truth, there is only one mind." He noted
also that in some sense the fundamental laws of the universe as well
as relations seem to be omnipresent, and so you have to make sense of
in some sense an aspect of an underlying reality present in every
aspect of it. He tied this concept to the hindu concept of brahman, which was equally everywhere in all things, relating it to how the universe only makes sense when thought of a system in this way.

"This life of yours which you are
living is not merely a piece of this entire existence, but in a
certain sense the "whole"; only this whole is not so
constituted that it can be surveyed in one single glance. This, as we
know, is what the Brahmins express in that sacred, mystic formula
which is yet really so simple and so clear: tat tvam asi, this is
you. Or, again, in such words as "I am in the east and the west,
I am above and below, I am this entire world."

According to his biographer Walter
Moore, there is a clear continuity between Schrodinger's
understanding of Vedanta and his research Saying: The unity and
continuity of Vedanta are reflected in the unity and continuity of
wave mechanics. In (and before) 1925, the world view of physics was a
model of a great machine composed of separable interacting material
particles. During the next few years, Schrodinger and Heisenberg and
their followers created a universe based on superimposed inseparable
waves of probability amplitudes. This new view would be entirely
consistent with the Vedantic concept of All in One.

Schrödinger wrote in his book My View
of the World: “In all the world, there is no kind of framework
within which we can find consciousness in the plural; this is simply
something we construct because of the temporal plurality of
individuals, but it is a false construction…. The only solution to
this conflict in so far as any is available to us at all lies in the
ancient wisdom of the Upanishad”

Because of this, schrodinger was also
led to believe that people necessarily survive death. Since the
global identity is always preserved, anything that makes up
individual aspects is likewise preserved even if it does not realize
it. He notes that this idea is not just vertical in terms of time,
but even in space. Your identity does not end with your own body, but
stretches beyond it with no clear borders. He relates his ideas to
fechner (see above) noting that fechner was one of the first to
explicitly relate science and pantheism together, trying to make
sense of it and survival after death in terms of modern science.

He uses the metaphorical example that
someone likely sat where you sit now a thousand years ago. but were
they really someone else? In some sense they might have been you, due
to the fact that in the global sense the differentiation of persons
has little scientific meaning. the abstraction of you was already
present, and would be in another life. This extends not just forward
after your death, but back before your birth. Thus. he says that
personal existence will never end.

He goes on to say that the reason that
pictures of mind don't exist in the scientific world picture is
because they are the world picture. Namely that abstract mind data
exists in everything, and the brain is just shaping it into a useful
format. In a sense this is also what religious experience and
unification with god is, experiencing the overarching unity. He wrote
a paper saying on death the body returns to the physical world and
the spirit to the abstract mental world, but the global spirit is one
unchanging unity of "light" and only the intermediary body
truly changes.

He also mentions when lovers come
together it heightens the realization of unity to realize that this
love is not between totally distinct things, but actually a relation
showing aspects of the mind coming together, since they are of course
both of ultimately the same mind, coming in communion via their close
relation.

Obviously all of this relates to a kind
of hindu view of the world, in the sense that it resembles in some
ways the ideas of brahman, and in others other eastern philosophies.
Schrodinger explicitly related this to brahman himself. Which is why
he shows up as the cat that is one of the main figures in digital
devil saga explaining the nature of the world. That also has to do
with the fact that it is a version of those ideas based on modern
science rather than religion, which is a gap megaten tries to bridge
for many things.

One last thing to note about him is
that he says that he says that species with a long history of city
building eventually give up egotism like bees, saying that humans
might end up evolving down a similar path. Due to the fact that
evolution can influence this to be a preferable trait for species
that necessarily need to live in unity. This obviously sounds like
something law considers good, but is trying to cause themselves, even
down to the bee metaphor, due to the fact that the angels use a
literal. giant beehive looking thing as an ark in IV.

**Heisenberg** said that the world
seems to have a unified orderliness, and that for this reason it
makes sense to think of this as the soul of the world, due to being
the same type of structure we think of in individuals making them
work as a distinct being. He said that this concept of a world order
is like god, enough that he'd say he believes in one. But he went on
to say that this may or may not be the god of religions, and nothing
about science itself points to any particular religion as likely. So
one must adapt a general mentality in terms of relation to this world
soul. He also said that plato seems to have won out over democritus,
since particles seem to be mathematical or informational abstractions
rather than solids. He also states that structures within reality
seem to be somewhat like the thoughts of god. (Note in DDS2 when fred
says that the data the world is made of is kind of like thoughts.)

**Einstein**'s views have been desribed
as a cross between spinoza and pythagoras. He believed that there is
a central order to the cosmos, and this can be apprehended by
mystical union. He talks about the **cosmic religious feeling**,
which he relates to religious experience, but needs no
anthropomorphic god to be made sense of, and so sometimes gets
confused with atheism, but also can be seen as sainthood when
instantiated properly. He describes democritus, saint francis of
asisi and spinoza as having this type of mentality. He says that
science can't give values, and says that values then must be related
to in a sense this religious drive. He defines being religious as
someone who liberated themself from their lower desires in favor of
being able to work for superpersonal value. Namely, what he is saying
is that animals think only in the small and short egoistic term, and
that that is a natural way of thinking, but religion is the relation
of value that orients you to the big picture. He describes this also
as similar to buddha, in that you must diminish your immediate self
interests to take on this mentality.

He says that a religious person is also
devout in the sense of not having doubt in the value of these values
despite them not being empirical. However, religion by nature is a
little ambiguous, and when one claims it is clear it tries to become
itself a science which is wrong, and one must accept the lack of
clarity of value. Religion defines the goal, and how to get there.
But a problem comes up when one sees god as personal, since it makes
people seem to lose autonomy, making them into its servants, rather
than existing for the people themselves. He says that true religion
can't conflict with science, but historical religions have not been
fully true.

He says: "My religion consists of
a humble admiration of the illimitable superior spirit who reveals
himself in the slight details we are able to perceive with our frail
and feeble minds. That deeply emotional conviction of the presence of
a superior reasoning power, which is revealed in the incomprehensible
universe, forms my idea of God." Elsewhere Einstein wrote, "It
is enough for me to reflect upon the marvelous structure of the
universe and try humbly to comprehend an infinitesimal part of the
intelligence manifested in Nature."

He said he believed in the
"pantheistic" God of Baruch Spinoza, but not in a personal
god, a belief he often criticized. He also called himself an
agnostic, while disassociating himself from the label atheist,
preferring, he said, "an attitude of humility corresponding to
the weakness of our intellectual understanding of nature and of our
own being". Namely what he was getting at is that religion is a
useful project that is core to the reality of human being. And that
while it should no longer be centered on the assumption of a sentient
god to make sense of, that atheism is misguided in that it denies the
project altogether.

He also said as a response once when
asked if he was pantheist: "Your question is the most difficult
in the world. It is not a question I can answer simply with yes or
no. I am not an Atheist. I do not know if I can define myself as a
Pantheist. The problem involved is too vast for our limited minds.
May I not reply with a parable? The human mind, no matter how highly
trained, cannot grasp the universe. We are in the position of a
little child, entering a huge library whose walls are covered to the
ceiling with books in many different tongues. The child knows that
someone must have written those books. It does not know who or how.
It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The
child notes a definite plan in the arrangement of the books, a
mysterious order, which it does not comprehend, but only dimly
suspects. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of the human mind,
even the greatest and most cultured, toward God. We see a universe
marvelously arranged, obeying certain laws, but we understand the
laws only dimly. Our limited minds cannot grasp the mysterious force
that sways the constellations. I am fascinated by Spinoza's
Pantheism. I admire even more his contributions to modern thought.
Spinoza is the greatest of modern philosophers, because he is the
first philosopher who deals with the soul and the body as one, not as
two separate things."

Albert Einstein was asked toward the
end of his life if he had any regrets. He answered: “I wish I had
read more of the mystics earlier in my life.” Implying that over
time he came to associate his ideas even more with mysticism, and
wished he had begun so earlier so that he would have had more time to
emphasize this.

**Max planck** says that scientists
must recognize religion as closed to science in some sense. Science
studies the physical world, and must understand that religion exists
as distinct from it. He also uses religion as synonym for value. And
talks about categorical imperative, saying that in the value based
sense this imperative is religious. He says that nihilism is in some
sense incompatible with science, since it sees the product itself as
meaningless, rather than meaningful. He says that proper Religion and
science can't contradict, and so while the religious mentality is
useful, it must not contradict good scientific understandings. Due to
the language he used, there is a likely pantheistic leaning, but he
did not expand much more than this.

**Wolfgang pauli** talked about how
jung was right, and that for religious purposes we should adopt a
somewhat jungian view of reality. He also says that the mandala is a
symbol of reality, and compared the mandala with holy trinity. He
says that the main center with external rings of mandalas resembles
the solar system, and that The pervasiveness if the Copernican system
is because it corresponds to this symbol. He says that archetypes
overlay and are used to interact with world like mysticism, and is
similar to plato's forms, being not just mental constructs but active
patterns in reality.

He says that in classical religion
matter gets conflated with a void of ideas and since the intelligible
is the good it leads matter to be seen as evil. Due to old religions
having dualistic thinking. And that this is why alchemists thought
that in matter there was spirit awaiting release. But that in reality
these aspects of reality go together, and should not be seen as
opposed. Classical alchemic magic also embraced dark region of matter
to interact, which he says was in some way the beginnings of people
accepting that the religious mentality could include the physical.
Complementarity exists in quantum mechanics and should be seen as
existing elsewhere also. He says that since modern physics describes
things more abstract than classical physics thought matter was that
we are closer to a concept of psychophysical monism like some earlier
alchemists thought. Due to thinking matter had mind within. This was
perhaps pauli advocating a panpsychist view of nature.

**Sir James jeans** was an English physicist, astronomer and mathematicians. He said in an interview: I incline to the idealistic theory that consciousness is fundamental,
and that the material universe is derivative from consciousness, not
consciousness from the material universe... In general the universe
seems to me to be nearer to a great thought than to a great machine. It
may well be, it seems to me, that each individual consciousness ought to
 be compared to a brain-cell in a universal mind.

Addressing the British Association in 1934, Jeans said: What remains is in any case very different from the full-blooded matter and the forbidding materialism
 of the Victorian scientist. His objective and material universe is
proved to consist of little more than constructs of our own minds. To
this extent, then, modern physics has moved in the direction of
philosophic idealism. Mind and matter, if not proved to be of similar
nature, are at least found to be ingredients of one single system. There
 is no longer room for the kind of dualism which has haunted philosophy since the days of Descartes.

In The Universe Around Us, Jeans writes: Finite
 picture whose dimensions are a certain amount of space and a certain
amount of time; the protons and electrons are the streaks of paint which
 define the picture against its space-time background. Traveling as far
back in time as we can, brings us not to the creation of the picture,
but to its edge; the creation of the picture lies as much outside the
picture as the artist is outside his canvas. On this view, discussing
the creation of the universe in terms of time and space is like trying
to discover the artist and the action of painting, by going to the edge
of the canvas. This brings us very near to those philosophical systems
which regard the universe as a thought in the mind of its Creator,
thereby reducing all discussion of material creation to futility.

**Sir arthur eddington** asks if
reality is material or mental or both. But notes that this is a
mistaken question and compares it to the ocean asking if it is water
or waves or both. Points out that people would say water is primary.
He says that likewise spiritual is primary. Since the material is now
understood by physics to not be. Material exists but isn't primary.
Since at the bottom of reality we reach abstract symbols. What we
previously saw as matter devolves into shadow. (Since matter is no
longer a thing in modern physics other than as a construct). What he
seems to be saying here is that the mind is liekly just information
processing, and since reality is made of information, that makes the
basic level closer to mind than to what we think of as matter.

He says that everything is the stuff
mind is made of, but only rarely does it raise to the level of
consciousness. Consciousness is continuous with subconscious which
fades into something even further but still continuous. Since basic
world is symbolic, this world stuff is continuous by being
informational and there is nothing we can make sense of but mind to
relate it to. But he also notes that in some sense it should perhaps
be called neutral stuff rather than mind stuff.

**Bernard d'Espagnat**, a French theoretical physicist best known for his work on the nature of reality, wrote: He further writes that his research in quantum physics has led him to conclude that an "ultimate reality" exists, which is not embedded in space or time

**Stephen Hawking** has occasionally
used pantheistic language, though he rarely expounds on it in any
detail. When asked if he believed in god, he responded "Yes, I
do, if by God you mean the embodiment of the laws that govern the
universe." He was also asked why people believe in god if one
does not exist, to which hawking replied: "I don't claim that
God doesn't exist. God is the name people give to the reason we are
here. But I think that reason is the laws of physics rather than
someone with whom one can have a personal relationship. An impersonal
God." He has stated that he is "not religious in the normal
sense," which due to this phrasing implies not entirely thinking
of himself as nonreligious. Despite this, there are times he has
referred to himself as an atheist before, despite sometimes denying
it. And has said that he considers heaven a myth. He has however at
other times said things like "The laws may have been decreed by
God, but God does not intervene to break the laws". So it seems
he places himself in an ambiguous place that leans towards an
ambiguous neutrality between pantheism and atheism, while not
entirely ruling out some kind of deism, though placing little stock
in it.

Obviously the character steven shows up
in-game who is based on stephen hawking. Interestingly, many neutral
ends which are humanistic can relate to this pantheistic image, since
it involves retaining the terminology of divinity, which even neutral
tends to do with the great will. Though stephen in game often also
sides with various neutral gods as well, though talking about how it
is for the sake of humanity.

## Pantheisms from the other wiki pages.

This section is to list what other
pages of this wiki has relevant forms of pantheism or something
resembling pantheism. But which were not included due to already
being on their own page. Note that some of these are more explicitly
religious rather than philosophical or scientific. Out of these
links, only the first four are based on modern philosophical or
scientific understandings, rather than ancient or religious ones.
Note that even if one does not believe in religious or ancient ones
in a literal sense, they can still be inspirational or help frame
other ideas into context. For instance, many take heavy inspiration
from and seek to practice stoicism, and use its language despite not
considering all its metaphysics entirely literal.

General pantheisms:

**Carl Jung** was heavily
pantheistic, relating the archetypes and collective unconscious to
abstract divinity immanent in the world.

**Paul Tillich**
is an important panentheistic figure, who worked to scale the idea of
divinity down to what we could know with high confidence within
reality due to the fact that he thought we can now no longer rely on
the existence of a tangible sentient God.

**Christian Atheism** despite the name often has pantheistic elements, being atheistic
relative to the literal existence of the christian god. When not
explicitly identifying as atheists they often refer to the idea
indirectly as just death of god theology.

**R M Hare**
though known more for work in utilitarianism than pantheism, had a
loosely pantheistic image of the world, based on the work of the
above process theists. Though this was not heavily developed.

Other religious or ancient pantheisms:

**Kabbalah**
has panentheistic elements in that God's true nature is an infinite
essence that revealed reality is only part of. The godhead itself
outside of reality is seen as incomprehensible however, and unable to
be described, even down to whether it is a coherent entity.

**Hinduism**
is obviously pantheistic or panentheistic in the concept of brahman
which is a universal world soul that all beings are part of. Some
forms of buddhism likewise veer into pantheism, though this is less
common, and in some forms like theravada is entirely absent.

**Taoism** is not quite pantheistic in that the tao is generally not conceived
of as a divinity in its own right. But at times its language can veer
into it.

**Confucianism**
is somewhat pantheistic, seeing Tian / Heaven as an abstract force
that pervades reality.

**Mohism**
like confucianism sees Tian / Heaven as a force that pervades
reality. However, mohism more actively considers it a sentient
entity. Albeit one people cannot communicate directly with.

**Cao Dai** is pantheistic in
a fairly explicit sense, seeing people as part of a universal
independently sentient God. One which also often refers to good
people within reality as avatars of it.

**Plato**
is pantheistic in that he believed in a world soul. Neoplatonists
also ascribed pantheistic connotations to the forms, and they feature
in many pantheisms.

**Stoicism**
is pantheistic, and materialistic, seeing reality as a sentient God
that guides the evolution of events within it.

**Pythagoreanism**
is panentheistic in that it sees the monad as an abstract force that
is not independently sentient, but the structure of which gives rise
to reality.

**Alchemists**
despite often also being Christians, often also were pantheists
seeing the world itself as having a separate world soul.