I question the employ of both the words “god” and (even more so) “gods”

That's where we differ old buddy, old pal...I think having Jung as an early influence made me parse psychic content (whatever it may be) first on a pre-rational level, giving it the primacy and then deriving statements after the fact in the sense of the individual (or in this case religio-human nexus) as a whole entity. In this sense, you may find that my usage is not subsequent to the logic of god or gods, but rather integrating it on a psychic level concerning the whole entity of humanity and gaia--the "why" and "what" of this interesting preoccupation as we exist in the cosmos.

As I recently determined: there is no winning rational arguments with reason. What is more important to me is spreading the awareness of "irrationales"--that we no longer need to justify ourselves exclusively, but rather justification itself is overrated. Rather, we should try and move past our differences into an integration space--I'm well past values, but the double meaning of outputs of functions, as rational results, haunts my work like a specter.

Glad to see your waves!

god

can you name me something else that humans have gotten wrong for 10s of thousands of years?
even market is just shaking after 500 years--but that term is very old itself.
and is market wrong, or are rather we suffering under the definition of "the market", especially the culture that surrounds it?

i am making an appeal to authority, but to which authority? All things we can know and influence happen in a homogenous reactive space, while all things in general also include inhomogeneity to either our systems of knowledge (their homogeneity--e.g. "God" "the market") or under the influence of things we cannot know, like ordered subsets of inhomogeneous space (agents of chaos, renegade monks).

This epistemology limits our knowledge to within homogeneity with the thing (interoperability) or its space (which includes our inhomogeneous action.) The extent to which interoperability with me counts accords with its homogeneous reality insofar as we understand it, and interferes which inhomogenous reality insofar as the latter exists. Lacking the first knowledge, nothing seems real.

I propose God is a simplex. According knowledge exclusively to rational elements results in more simpler explainers, and a stint with "science"--but agnosis is not not-knowing: it refers to the knowledge of the gaps. Exactly as God is used is how God is meant to be known: the unknown and our homogenous link to the mystery of change.

By including the rational and the irrational, God has all-factorization (i.e. teleology.), and so to give up what God has in trade of one's own self-factorization (sharira) is what critics call materialism, because it limits the knowledge. To understand the paths of things, or rather, non-things.

The highest postulate was the homogeneity of the highest, that all things happen. The deepest postulate was the integrity of inhomogeneity, chance meets change. To see coincidence always as an act of God opens the meaning gates, but it radically changes the search: thence religious groups function well for themselves. We moderns are missing the ability to form non-alternative groups--those that can operate in open society. Granted, this isn't a modern issue, but a religious one.

How would we operate if we openly stated our virtues? I think it would be second to a conditioning-response-request "God" subsequent to which we could parlay with the aliens, or any worldly neighbors who might not understand the things we mean.

if it doesn't happen, it isn't a thing.

you can have cultures without markets, but in order to have a word for things--for abstractions--it must become knowledge to begin with--thus knowledge becomes a vortex of character unless we posess the key to all-things and all-knowledge: this portal word is the first one an expeditionary party learns (speaking openly about the highest good--this is knowledge of Brahman). Then they appeal to their best interests (values). Finally they employ weapons.

The processof knowledge always employs abstractions, but unless there is a common unifying factor irrespective of input, then all abstractions are divising. Epistemology without guardrails is a thing, but it is what I preach as well as follow, into the club with you.

I serve the same usage of god I mean to unfollow: always a magnetic friend wish.

god is for many suspect, because it can be synonymous with self. I argue this misses the point in favor of adding unnecessary dimensionality to the mindspace. First off, then you have to prove everything, which roses start to stink like poo poo.

To claim our knowledge is the limit, we say "I am just the abstractor"--but we do not attain to homogeneity--this leads to disappointment. Agnosis acknowledges knowledge from a limited homogeneity, but it reaches the numinous exactly when that numinosity breaches our open cavities.

I say "integral limit for all numbers is the referent of the word God" I mean numbers in the sanskrit sense (sankhya): an accounted-for-ness of material things in the context of yoga: a togetherness synchronicity (e.g. flow, epistemologically religious extacy/bliss).

This is somethiing more than just the functional extent of the word. I mean that as an ordering potential, locating god will lead us to it: this goes past everything--beyond good, evil, and even the self.

i am unfortunately not one who causes absence gladly, therefore your lack of question was not well-met, since I consider you a friend and a reader. Perhaps this was an important conversation in the chapter of values.

The main failure of the V-project was not in the religiosity of its writer, but in the lack thereof: only true solidarity will refine words, and we think far too highly and lowly of ourselves at the same time. We humans tend to think so much about ourselves.

In developing language, God comes from beyond, but in ordering the world we learn about beyondness, as it were: to talk about this and mean beyond in the limit always refers to the same as much as it is different: it forces omni-presence, omnipotence, and all-knowingness one way or the other. I speak beyond homogeneity, which I naively thought values would reach.

We lack a connecting principle which brings us outside of ourselves--sex could be this for many, a good thing which could be refinable--what beyond raw power and control could refine a good thing to make it a cultural good?

As good as this value is, it gets highlighted because no one asserts values. No one does this either because they do do it, and they doo doo all over it--99% of God stuff--or they don't do it, and I want to speak critically about that--I can't really offer you questions, but feel free to pick apart my arguments--obviously if you don't believe it, then you will continue.

by karma, I believe that all things exist by choice, and most of that choice is the world sustaining us--the more we lose this belief, the closer it comes to meet us screaming, willing the illusion to shatter at the loss of life, at the chaos of intention. The world's gods scream, and our silence shatters--some people get religious.

I must go to relieve myself of such preoccupations with truth and beauty, and I respect your values. You will not see a criticism of ~them~ here.

1. I question the employ of both the words “god” and (even more so) “gods”

I appreciate this, but the question is not there--it's more a statement about your mindset and interest right? as you can probably see, the employ is a humble matter of hierarchy: the authority for all things is in their homogeneity.

At the moment I study non-homogeneity and chaos, therefore our reunion is well met!