I don't think I see the world as other people do; I presume what I'm trying to prove in this whole Exegesis, namely a medieval realist worldview in which the sensible world-order is [unconsciously] assumed to be printed out from an upper more real realm - this is also the world of the shaman: two level reality, as found in Plato but repudiated by Aristotle. 2-3-74 was a coming into full consciousness -+ control- of this worldview. My leap to full abstracting in 2-74 was an epiphany of - some archaic -probably medieval- substrate in me, bursting through the thin rationalist modern veneer. It was anamnesis all right (v. p 512, Plato's view of how we apprehend universals) but -
Primitive is the word I want. Contemporary philosophy makes no sense to me. & yet, as Pat Warrick says, I write from the standpoint of quantum mechanics. My God isn't even transcendent - No; I don't believe in heaven or an afterlife. What do I believe in? Kantian phenomenology? That an invisible latent realm exists immanently in the sensible world or that no objective world in itself exists at all? Acosmism? Something Eastern (e.g. Brahmanism?)
"If you press world hard enough it yields up God" - paraphrase of p. 485. "I define God as world under the threat of death ... God forced into the open, + put to work in the service of evading death." I am not I; I am not here; I am not now. Buddhist idealism? No, because when self + world go, God -not the void- replaces them, + world is seen as an abstraction outside space + time, an interconnected system of ideas in His mind; more precisely, a memory [s...t .n] process (i.e. not static).