The burden of proof relating to conciousness, free choice and rationality

[Angrboda]

That said, I feel compelled to briefly summarize my philosophical understanding of the universe for anyone that may be interested. So….

The Totality is all that is, was, and ever will be. The Totality is complete since by definition it cannot lack anything. It already contains everything that could possibly be. As such, only the Totality could be the “Supreme Being”. This does not mean that the Supreme Being, the Totality, is the same thing as physical reality. The Totality is also called the One or the Good.

The Totality has at least three essential aspects: form, substance, and potential. The Totality as to its substance is Primal Matter. The Totality as to its form is Ideal Form. The Totality as to its potential is called Emanation. None of these divisions within the Totality has priority over any other nor can any one aspect be contingent upon the other. They exist as a perfect unity.

Whoah! Whoah! I'm behind on this thread, but let me jump in anyway.

First, while I certainly don't share your views, I find them refreshing and their exposition seems to show that serious and intelligent thought went into them. On to the disagreement.

You say that the all is both complete and has potential. How can something that is complete have potential? Potential in terms of energy (or entropy) is the difference between its current state, and the exhaustion of its possibilities. If something has potential, it is by definition incomplete, for potential is the tension between one state of things and a different state that it can reach through normal processes. If something is whole and complete, there is no other state it can reach, and therefore no potential.

(And looking ahead of my reading, I see you're going to make me refresh my understanding behind Aristotle's Prima Materia. You bastard! "Work, work, work, work, work! Hello, boys! How ya doin'? I missed you!")

---

ETA: You might want to investigate SEP: Mereology proper (being the philosophy behind theories of the relationship of parts to wholes), and in particular devote some space to evading the shoals of Mereological Nihilism, which is the theory that there are no composite objects (I lean heavily in this direction). I won't pretend I understand Mereological Nihilism and I have almost no knowledge of mereology proper (and it looks a little over my head, to be honest). However, a quick glance at the Stanford article seems to indicate that mereological frameworks tend to ground on a Goldilocks problem wherein the bed is too hard or too soft, and never just right. I haven't fully gone over your post, but it seems to appeal to an implicit sort of Platonic Realism at various points, but this aspect appears like a dramatic deus ex machina — it appears briefly, solely to move the plot along, then ducks back behind a curtain. I don't think your framework will hold without explicit definition and justification for that aspect; unless of course, it's simply magic, without explanation.

---

ETA(ETA): Well, you were refreshing until you ducked behind the barricade after barraging us with a Calvin and Hobbesian flurry of metaphysical snowballs. "Does not play well with others." The mind is like a muscle, it only works if you work it. Why won't you come out and play? Did your mommy forbid you to play in our reindeer games?