Physically Conceptualized Ontology

(Earthly Acquaintances of Existence)

by Pastor George D. Cutler


Grace Gospel Ministry


Inadequate inflictions of traditional and orthodoxy “Physical World Orders” codify what most basic human mindsets construe as actually structuring existence. What is relied on principally is what is retained in earthly acquaintances of existence. Conversely, none of this is feasible even when a certain amount of interpretations and re-arrangements are utilized in these postulations. These explications of Ontology (essence of being) clearly bade tendencies of complicated philosophical data of inferences invoking challenging tasks in the sense of metaphysical epistemology (knowledge). This addresses two age-old philosophical questions: what environs espoused the nature of human knowledge? And how was such possibly originated? Human viewpoints originated from a position based on their “Critique of Pure Reason” plus so-called “Conceptual Pragmatism,” by aspiring what science and technology have “developmentally comprehended” over the past centuries.

Remarkably, the theoretical areas of Relativity and Quantum Mechanics are relied upon to codify these statistical methods and probabilities speculations. Not surprisingly, this cogitation is particularly influenced humanistic by the “Philosophers of Pragmatism.” However, what is construed as enhancements in the “pragmatic approach” of its limited conception of past and present truths has a profound effect on physical epistemology, because such offers imagined certainty and precision. These so-called “developments” solely introduce human analyses independent of scriptural facts, based on “self-evident truths,” formulated intuitively in definitions couched in concepts arbitrarily chosen for the sole purposes of substantiation itself. Conversely, these tenuous concepts of Ontology are independent of scripturally authenticated declarations, without connections to things initiated and actualized in God’s “Sayings,” i.e., in His “Decree” (Hebrews 1:2-3).

All physical concepts imbue similar conjectural developments in scientism theories such as “Relativity,” in averring that physical abstraction and systematic precision go hand-in-hand. However, the humanly avowed “abstractly precise systems" do not exact certainty in experiences, as they merely exhibit tentatively what annuls them from “spiritual truth.” Hence, these consignments to “empirical (experimental) truth” are in their distinctions, probable functionalities. These exude what is common-place in all branches of science; not so much as to militating against their qualms as the foundations of science but as to acknowledging that the Grace Scriptures solely establish what the essence of existence is. Therefore, spiritual awareness doesn’t endorse paradoxical “double-truth certainties” directly concerning the abstract, in applications to sensorial origination of experiences, which “practical inferences” are at best speculative and at worse spiritually impossible.  

The critical issue invalidating all physically conceptualized existence is encompassed in the dispositions of empirical knowledge’s subsequent rejection and abandonment of the Scripture’s view of truth. Conversely, what valid grounds for truth can there be without a reliable source of origination aside from which can there be any truth at all? What is the nature of abstract concepts and what are their actualized relational reality experiences? Science itself does not provide clear answers in it’s supposedly enlightenment in “Mind and the World Order,” as it attempts to interject postulates of “Conceptual Pragmatism.” Validation of “absolute truth” characterizes the principles of order and criteria of “reality,” which arises from scriptural conceptual analysis. The latter phrase: Hebrews 1:2 states, “ … through Whom He made (caused) the ages (worlds order).” On the one hand, the Greek noun aivw/naj (eh∙on∙ahs) is basically rendered “times.” Yet on the other hand, the Greek verb evpoi,hsen (ehpee∙ee∙sehn) rendered “made” conveys the purpose for “the times,” hence, certifying Colossians 1:16 that Christ is the means and object of creation.

The first phrase of Hebrews 1:3 states, “ …Who being the radiance of the glory and the impression of His substance and upholding all things by the saying of His power.“ Here, “Who being the radiance of the glory” conveys that Christ’s status continuously exists as the brightness (enlightenment) emitting the source of existence or “the impression of His substance,” conveying that He is the exact representation and expression of substance. Note that the Greek noun u`posta,sewj (eep∙os∙tahs∙ehos) rendered “substance” conveys “to stand under;” emphasizing Him as the basic essence of all existence. In the clause, “upholding all things by the saying of His power,” the Greek present participle fe,rwn (phehr∙on) rendered “upholding” conveys establishing and sustaining in the sphere of tw/| r`h,mati (to ree∙mah∙tee) rendered “the saying” duna,mewj auvtou (thee∙nahm∙ehos ahf∙too) rendered “of His power.“              

In order for something “real” to be actualized, it must be emanated from a prior source, discriminated in essence of experience in previously deified criteria. While physical concepts define the applications of many experiences hypothetically only the origination and sustenance of a conceptual system is instrumental and pragmatic. Empirical truth is never more than a probable experience capable of conceptual interpretation when such requires no assumptions conforming to what Conceptual Pragmatism relies on for its employment in particular. However, the Grace Scriptures exclusively declare the legitimate “pragmatic” approach in actualized concept of unchallenged truth; void of inconsistencies embodied in problems incurred in contentions in the earthly acquaintances of existence’s theses and circulars, which are strongly interconnected to causes that render difficulty in the order of their expositions.

Inductions about physicality’s philosophies in general and metaphysics in particular do not extract reliably rational methodologies in existence, as such is characterized merely by initial assumptions, void of any originality foundation. Subsequently, what are relied upon are merely humanly ingressions of assumptions and methodologies of “conceptual pragmatism.” In this sense, theses initial assumptions inhabit that there is a difference between science and philosophy, e.g., science in relation to studying and seeking to convey knowledge of its phenomena while philosophical metaphysics relates to what is so-called clear consciousness and coherent expressions of principles dealings with the “familiar.” Through this rationale, “logistical ethics” engender viewing what is “valid” and “good” in human single meanings, ambiguously applied in metaphysics. These attempts to codify reality contextually in anthropomorphic mental poles simply exude a particular perspective of mirages and dreams. Though such may be conventionally construed and categorized as genuine, these are merely scripturally incorrect postulations.

In physical conceptualizations of ontology, metaphysics is typically relied upon to reveal the phenomenal categories of the earthly acquaintances of existence. So-viewed “valid understanding” labels ‘real’ versus ‘unreal’ in human experiences in formulating such as authentic criteria for doing so. Principles in these categories solely relate to physicality, as these experiences never transcend, precede or define anything other than its scope. Because they are void of definable originality, they are not categories within themselves but are simply criteria of interpretation within the human mind. Thereof, the functions of metaphysics decry problems induced in categorical methodologies’ usages of the same principles as “ethics and logic.” It is therefore conferred with the nature of the “real” only as it is manifested through reflective methods. Such may be physically conceived within initial principles and criteria in science as general functions of existence but thorough Grace covenantal scriptural examinations correctly formulate inherent the consistencies of “unequivocal proofs.”

Human viewpoints instigate interpretations of material experiences nullified in “physical anticipations of delusions exhibiting incompetent existence.” Hence, what are displayed in physical boundaries contest prearranged eternalized interpretations, which conditions must be met to constituent “reality.” Scriptural evaluations of “Rationalist and Empiricist”   philosophies demonstrate them to be inadequate, as both treat knowledge as if it is the relation of an individual mind to an external object, which neither recognizes that truth is undeniably reliable. Essentially of experiences is not particularly assembled in sensorial data reflected in the structure of human intelligence. Such mind-sets can only discover so-called “mind principles” through physically familiar experiences. Human minds do not transcend secular experiences, as such imbue reflectively “conceptual pragmatism,” as analytic and empirical rather than scripturally and spiritually.

Secular experiences preponderantly provide data to philosophies in part, which human minds contribute through “interpreting attitudes recognizing such underlying principles” in a sense as the aforementioned rationale. Philosophies aims are to analyze/interpret human experiences and by reflection, express implicit principles that common minds contribute and use to “make sense of experiences.” Such are therefore conceived as the prioritized categories/criteria mind-sets applied to experiences and their definitions. But this is not reliably rationalistic in the sense that the human mind is not innate, plus it is not a transcendent entity, thus these “reflective methods” are not also pragmatic for implicitly codifying categories and principles in experience and attitudes. “Philosophical truth,” like human knowledge, is about secular experiences and thus strictly concerns human ordinary grasp. Humanly reflective methods may provide “critical examinations” of secular constructs/interpretations but these functions are inadequate of freeing them of inconsistencies, thus rendering them useless “sources of reliability.”

Philosophy itself might work some alterations on human attitudes but its typologies of categorizations are no more meritorious than their steadfastness. I Corinthians 3:19-20 state, “ ..  for the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it has been written, the One taking the wise in their craftiness; and again, the lord knows the thoughts of the wise that they are empty.” These verses unequivocally declare that the world system is foolishness to God and that their allusions of wisdom in the craftiness of their thoughts are indeed empty. Here the Greek noun mwri,a (mo∙ree∙ah) rendered “foolishness” infers the senseless of those enthralled in panourgi,a| (pahn∙oory∙ee∙ah) rendered “craftiness.” Conversely, all human thoughts are ma,taioi (maht∙eh∙ee) rendered “empty,” worthless, futile and useless (II Timothy 4:4; Titus 3:9).    

Humanly reflective methodologies repudiate every concept of realistic reality, in that the essence of existence transcends physicality’s experiences. “Philosophical truth/secular knowledge” exclusively conveys human experiences. Beyond this “knowledge” abides scripturally, Eternality’s examination of life and reality establishes “perfect knowledge” on the firm foundation of “conceptual pragmatism” and at the same time introduces unlimited rational and reliable elements of existence. Philosophy therefore merely seeks to reveal categorical criteria that its mind-set applies but scripturally genuine, defined capable, correct, valid and/or reality entities assuredly rejoinder all unresolved questions concerning the essence of existence.

When the priority of existence is construed in physicality, underscored questions arise as to what is reality and what is not? Examinations linking the human mind to what it transports in deficiency of grasping actualized experiences; exhibit spiritually detached, varied grounds from which its concepts of reality is drawn. What constitutes actualized experiences and knowledge exhibit examinations of scriptural “conceptual pragmatism.” Contending ingredients of actualized comprehensions are tendered in either sensually mirrored physicality or spiritually conceptualized reality. In their contradictory originality veins, they are relevantly, yet autonomously deleterious. Incongruence (dissimilarity) in these concepts initiates prioritized truths defining and explicating specifically the mutual absence of spirituality in the former and physicality in the latter. Neither limits the other but unadulterated Experiential Knowledge emanates from “conceptual interpretation” of the Scriptures. “Empirical Objects (experiential)” are designated in Spiritual Concepts, which are never just “now,” i.e., one data point transpiring from moment to moment.

Physicality exudes extensions in time as actual/possible thereof, assigning materialized conceptions to one data point in preference of what is merely partially verified. There is no knowledge by direct existential awareness to interpret/predict secular functionalism, in that “data points” cannot authenticate any ontology (existence) conceptualizations. All physically secularized “experiential knowledge” is thereof probable, as there are no pre-ordained categories remote from Eternal Actualizations. Every secular experience falls within some physical concept, whereas genuinely probable predictions are of necessity determinably sourced from beyond such boundaries. In humanly cognitive experiences, derivations of physicality’s sensorial data emit secularly perceptions and interpretations, which solely represent the actuation of human thoughts. The relationship between these represents the basis of much philosophical arguments and the distinction between them constitute more or less every physical postulation. These philosophical theories position emphasis on physicality’s elements, as their interpretations are guardedly maintained.

Comprehensions in such theories equate resonance with misconstrued “stable states in the immediacies of “now,” which subordinates all attempts to prioritize substantiations of them. Recognizing that flawed interpretations shatter all pretenses of such suppositions; dismantles their grounds of validity, which renders them as non-credible explications in inevitable skepticism. Theories emphasizing “human constructive minds” in materialized sensorial data reject all spiritual dependences as irrelevant to “realistic knowledge,” in that such are regarded as “unreal abstractions.” There are no unclear apprehensions in the secured composition of Eternality; hence objects/subjects are within considerations; not between considerations and always independent of “something humanly induced.” This idealism annuls all contentions that rationalized realistic receptions coincide overall with the necessity of inserting secularly sensorial data.

When physical ingredients are relied upon in cognitive experiences for certification of such, certain questions yet subsist, i.e., what is the authentic relation in the particulars? How reliably can human minds construct, interpret and transcend physical experiences? If so, can such scope be comprehended? If not, can such conditions be experienced for interpretations? Elements in experiences aren’t created by human thoughts nor altered, displaced or defined by what is “sensorial.” Distinctions between human interpretations and realizable actualizations accentuate permanent characterizations of perceptions. An observed “thing” is merely characteristically of a collection of sensorial qualities, which categorization is socially acquired and solely dependent on present interests of actions. Something “actualized” remains constant, in that its classifications and relations to other things or actions are independent of physical interpretations. Descriptions of “things,” as “visible” don’t translate in particular with respect to possible future experiences, i.e., as elements of predictions.

Hebrews 12:27 states, “and this …yet once ….. does make evident the removal of the shaken, as of having been made and are that the not shaken may, having remained.” The conveyance of this verse exhibits that what is actualized is incapable of alteration, as the Greek phrase dhloi/ tw/n saleuome,nwn meta,qesin w`j pepoihme,nwn (thee·lee ton sahl·ehv·o·meh·non meht·ahth·ehs·een os peh·pee·eem·eh·non) rendered “does make evident the removal of the shaken, as of having been made and are” certifies i[na mei,nh| ta. mh. saleuo,mena (eenah meeno tah mee sahl·ehv·o·meh·nah) rendered “that the not shaken may remain.” 

Hence, what “remain” denotes the actualized experience, which cannot be altered nor does it depend on human interests and wishes. This refutes descriptions that what is “visibly and immediately present” is in fact what categorizations and/or relating acts of human interpretations is in the actualized sense. Even as it’s immediately perceived, definable presence project consciousness in its visualized interest in a particular experience or object; what is viewed totally is in definition or “presentation,” as a single experience of an objectively, historically unique event. This does not signify accurate identifications of events within their repeatable contents, which may be defined or described as the immediacy of something analyzable into complexion of such. These presentations as events may depict uniqueness but the qualms that make them up are not what are viewed in their totality (Hebrews 11:3).

The contents of actualized experiences summarize solely in compliance with scriptural criteria of “creativeness.” Unambiguous illustrative dispositions of accomplished entities remain unaffected by modes of human thoughts or actions. Prearranged essentials are never isolated in physicality because actualized perceptions would then be entirely in awareness of human states of presentiments. Unqualified experiences of altercations persist in the turbulent Time Loops as interpretatively extended influences in figments of metaphysical imaginations. Hypotheses of human knowledge cannot be used as a basis for actualized existence, in that abstractions in secular intuitions are simply components of humanly resonating, sensually, conceptually induced elements of experiences. These unreliable “concepts are logical intensive connotations” that are utterly unqualified by elements exclusively dependent on physical knowledge. What must be accomplished through non-alterableness transcends beyond all philosophical and psychological states of perceptions, which are maintained independently, objectively and impersonally from any human incorporation.

“Realized conceptualizations” classify meanings/interpretations that are common by use of a substantive or equivalent. Subjectively, logics of physicality specify fundamental to science and supplemental secularly intellectual applications. The divergent implications of Spirituality as juxtaposed to Physicality are cooperative when designation of the latter flows in deference to the former; otherwise, this “cooperation” is illusory. Corroborations are chiefly identified commonly, yet the Scriptures solely dictate spirituality, as opposed to secularly psychological perceptions in relevance to physicality. Particular perceptions of the two are identical when certification of the spiritual solely imbues comprehensions of the invisible though “faith” (Hebrews 11:1-3). Contrariwise, certification of the physical solely imbues conceptions of the visible that lead to opinionated skeptical views induced through “secular data.” Both use languages to convey thought and if non-commonality between their respective originality sources convey anything, it is considerations of what each reverberatingly communicates as to what imparts reality (II Corinthians 4:18).

Essentially, what is internalized prompts what each of these resources distinctively and discriminatingly relates to. Submissions of criteria in “familiarity” flaunt compilations of substantive adjectives as equivalents; however unsecured in misperceived commonality of ascribing terms for verifying their actualized significances. Defining terminologies of behavior display notations of patterns in lieu of purpose, which incites query of just what objects/things and functions “are” rather than “what are they for?” In these, physicality is inconclusive in collections of assessments, which are ineffectively percent-wise. Earthly viewed acquaintances propose that the larger the number of percepts, induce the better “chance” of circumscribing their precise denotations. This mode is additionally imposed for defining provisions in expressed implications involved for defining one concept in terms of others. These obviously flawed conceptualizations are defined as independent in sensorial imaginations set in physical patterns of relationships in terms of others that are ambiguously non-communicable.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  

Earthly structured usages of relational languages inhibit variedly unsettled in what such exploratory concentrations interpret. What might physically materialize in agreements of definitions don’t coincide with the cursors of actualized pertinence. Over and above all ambiguities, Eternal Conveyances exact actualized meanings of occasions in particular degrees of clearness in scriptural denotations, which exude unequivocal certifications without deliberations in secularity. The purpose of spiritual knowledge exhibits in God’s practically decreed interest of actions in consistent patterns of particularly manifested experiences. Intuitive cognitive translucence primarily positions objects/things’ criteria of what are unforeseen in what/when/how without any specificities of why. Categorizations often employ the initial sensorial perception and/or what are momentous rather than the criteria of stipulations within the available of originality intent.  Purpose always exercises identities of denotations consistently in implicit modes beyond what are interpreted in secular attitudes and behaviors.

I Corinthians 3:18 states, “Don’t anyone deceive himself; if any one supposes to being wise among you in this age, he must, having been a fool; that he may be, having been wise.” Here, the Greek verb evxapata,tw (ehx·ahp·aht·aht·o) rendered “deceived,” in the present tense and imperative mood denotes the command that not mhdei.j (mee·thees) rendered “no one” of God’s people must be e`auto.n (eh·ahf·ton) rendered “himself” self-deceived or self-deluded. This reference identifies the world’s view in assessment of categorizations strictly in Physicality. In this sense, the phrase “if any one supposes to being wise among you in this age” states the scriptural view of spiritually defining what reality engenders in the phraseology “he must, having been a fool;” in the imperative, aorist of the verb gene,sqw (yeh·nehs·tho) rendered “he must, having been.”

Corollary in this dominion, this verse conveys directives to the one who dokei/ (thok·ee) rendered “supposes,” thinks, imagines, presumes or esteems wisdom according to the secular incepts of this (present) age. The phrase “in this age,” identifies particularly its philosophical and physiological “wisdom” (II Corinthians 4:4; Galatians 4:8-11; I Timothy 1:4). Responses to adherences to such entail the phrase rendered “he must, having been a fool,” in conveying the scriptural rejection of physicality reliability entities. The subjunctive mood and aorist tense of the phrase “that he may be, having been wise” emphasizes contrasting concepts of God’s Decree, as wisdom established in spirituality of His purpose, as opposed to human misconceptions instituted in physicality.              

In this light, physicality cannot specify “why” if its implications cannot be seen in what sustains human consciousness. Objects/things and functions can’t classify themselves, in that none maintain labels. Human minds convey varied classifications of so-imagined “exculpatory experiences,” as representing and dictating precisions. What recapitulates language terms “common to human minds” equate strictly in their figurative sense, as actualized accuracies are confusing and impossible in Physicality. Actualized concepts exude internalizations verifying complete concurrence of Ontology Language requisites. Scriptural patterns of inter-related confirmations are so essential to consistency. Though scriptural conceptualizations exude invisible abstractions; their identities communicate indisputable understanding of reality in Divine Superlative rather than Secular Sensory. God’s Eternal Intent and Purpose extend reliable significance to objects/things/actions; not as to what connect presently of makeup in interpretation but even more scripturally explicatively what actualized existence exhibits in reality, as opposed to revelations that Physically Conceptualized Ontology mirrors Earthly Acquaintances of Existence.