Somali Tales

There is a lot of rambling in this post and a lack of academic rigour. But the core questions are worth sharing.

The Question:

How Do We Realize We Exist, and What Is the Role of (Static or Active) Alterity In This Realization?

Or “Can I Only Be a Subject, If Something Else Also Exist?” Or simply the possibility that other things do exist.

And do you need a space, a separation from something, for this thought to manifest?

The questions can seem obscure at first. But ask yourself, can there be an “I” if there isn’t a “not-I”? And can I say I am, if I’m not self-reflecting, and there aren’t things that are outside of me?

Is this delimitation, this border, between the inner and the outer a necessity?

There are several aspects to this last point:

• The “I”, as something that simply exist (or manifest itself).
• The “I” as something occupying a space (mental, physical, abstract or conceptual).
• The “I” as an identity.
• The “I” as an agent, something that acts.

This brings me to the ultimate being: God.

He is often described as an “absolute,” meaning perfect (without any lack), limitless.

If He is limitless, is He everything? Some believe that is the case. And to be honest, from a non-monotheistic point of view, my questions may make very little sense. However, I think that even if God were everything, He would need an infinitesimal thing that is not Him to form a self. By being a unity, There must be something that isn’t part of this unity.

Questions and beliefs

I’m not discussing God’s potential powers here, but His existence (I’m going with the hypothesis that He does exist here).

I have several theses in this article:

1. Existing is a positive attribute: it is not equal to “not being non-existent”.
   • To Exist is to manifest itself within a context (physical, abstract, mental).
2. Existing requires alterity (even a static alterity, like the possibility of not existing)
   • It requires differentiating itself from something else, or the possibility of something else.
3. Only separation creates the possibility of a relation. To be able to identify this “something else,” the agent needs to be separated from at least “one thing.” Only if this condition is fulfilled will this create a space for self-reflection.
   • This thing can be a mental space (within God).
   • There may be a link to consciousness.
4. OR God transcends any requirement, but He still needs to exist from time to time (manifest Himself, if only to Himself, even without consciousness).

Imagine you are an observer of all that exists: shouldn’t God be contained within this view—even as a mere invisible presence?

My intuition may be wrong. But since I’ve generally studied theology from the negative attributes aspect (via negationis), I’m looking for the one positive aspect that is undeniable. I always thought “all-powerful” was it.

The expressions via negationis include things like “God is not…” and it is followed by attributes that are often given to Him, but in the negative sense. Like “God is not not all-powerful.” It sounds more complicated than stating “God is all-powerful,” but giving positive attributes is perceived as limiting because you have to detail what it means, and this would exclude many things.

By saying that He is not not all-powerful, we go one level over being all-powerful: a level that leaves enough space for all the things that we cannot express by the simple expression of “all-powerful.”

But does it make sense to say:

“God is not… non-existent”?

My intuition (which can be wrong) tells me that this is the one element for which we can use a positive attribute. It is even necessary for God to “exist” (in the sense that He manifests Himself, even unconsciously, if He truly exists). This doesn’t negate the fact that it is possible that God becomes nonexistent at times (meaning that He disappears or stops manifesting Himself positively).

Manifestation

If a God exists, He may need to be “present” or occupy a “space” (symbolic or abstract). I’m not talking about a physical space per se. I’m talking about something much more ineffable but also concrete—God must be (at some point) within the realm of “reality” or existence.

By reality or existence, I mean the space where things manifest themselves as real entities, without (involuntary) interruption.

A gold dragon exists in the realm of the imagination: we combine several things to make this imaginary thing emerge in our mind. So it only exists (or becomes manifest) when we think about it. It cannot exist without the action of an agent. It stops existing when we stop thinking about it.

This is how I imagine atheists perceive a “God.” It only exists when they “think” about a “Him.” Meanwhile, for a believer, God exists at all times, without interruption, outside our imagination. Whether we think about Him or not. His existence is independent of all agents and imagination.

So, even if He is “material-less,” like the number 2 or an idea, He must be something “tangible,” even abstractly. If He is only pure consciousness, it must be positively present, no?

The thing that exists must exist in a context outside the mind, outside the imagination. There must be an iteration of that thing somewhere. That is the only way it can have an impact on the other things that exist or don’t.

Thus, we establish that if God exists, He exists, at least partly, within the realm of existence or reality and independently of anyone hallucinating Him.

The second part of this article will be publish soon.