Responsibilitarianism

                    All Ethics presupposes that actors ought to own up the responsibility 

of their actions. The term Responsibilitarianism may sound as a tautology. Unfortunately due to various philosophies & anti-philosophies that have emerged in the course of the on-going enlightenment project, have deviated from the project & have tried to render the project as impossible & in some cases even unwarranted. Rebellions against the very notion of Reason in human sciences on one hand & emergence of reductionist determinism out of the exact sciences on the other have tried to undercut the notion of ‘voluntary agent becoming more & more rational’, by either denying agent-hood or by denying the very possibility of becoming rational. These currents in thought are accompanied by all pervasive welfare State bestowing rights after rights without bothering about the duty-side of any right. Such rights which are not supported from Duty-side tend to become hollow & add to the discontent rather than alleviating it. Re=emergence of religions & communalisms have further harmed the possibility of rational conduct. Aggressive religions are more explicit in making the harm. But non-aggressive ones spread escapism as they preach dissolution of the ego & render agent-hood as illusory.

 We are undergoing a crisis of Responsibility Deficit which tends to cascade with Authoritarianism. With all this, putting Responsibility at the center of Ethics & political philosophy does not at all sound tautological but the very need of the juncture in history.

The Idea of Human-Good

Any political philosophy worth the name can not escape from giving a paradigm-judgment regarding Human-Nature & Human-Good. Responsibilitarianism does not shy away from its universal-rational commitment & does not accept any sort of cultural relativism, as if the individual’s self-responsible choice were a matter of personal taste. It recognizes neither the ‘total pleasure maximization’ nor its ‘equal distribution’ as Human-Good.

Humans have no automatic instinctive capacity to make proper decisions to survive & thrive. They have to think, make conscious decisions, opt for some within available alternatives & own up the consequences. It is Human actions that can be ‘right’ or ‘wrong’ as decisions are reached via conscious deliberation. Humans perceive themselves as agents or doers of their action. Their self-appraisals render the sense of responsibility to them.

Each human individual is unique & fortuitous & has to endeavor to improve her lot again & again at each situation she falls into. Responsibilitarianism recognizes faculty of  reason & quest of rationality but also accepts fallibility, imperfection & susceptibility to temptations on the part of humans. Responsibilitarianism envisions Human-Good in every individual rising as much she can towards Autonomy, Responsibility & Maturity. It proposes to encourage the abiders of responsibility & to discourage the evaders of individual responsibility as well as the invaders of individual rights.

Why coercive power is needed at all

Responsibilitarianism cherishes rule of law & despises the arbitrary whims of the rulers. It recognizes no discriminatory privileges or servitudes & seeks proper law that is universally applicable to all, i.e. Isonomy (& not any quantity distributive equality). General principle is that every authority must be redeemed by accomplishment of the responsibility implied in it & that every responsibility must be enabled by the authority required for it. Deficit of responsibility & surplus of authority generates the demand for coercive power.

The supply of coercive power, on the other hand, comes basically from the relation between the victor & the vanquished that is established at the culmination of wars. Warfare, albeit irrupting intermittently, is kept seething in the form of envy & hatred amongst parochial ‘collective identities’ needed by the minds that do not have true self-esteem.

We will keep aside the ‘supply side’ of coercive power & concentrate upon how Responsibilitarianism seeks to minimize the demand of coercive power generated by the ‘Responsibility Deficit’.

Responsibility towards oneself

Responsibilitarianism countenances three basic categories of Responsibilities & corresponding Authorities (or Rights). Each human individual owes a responsibility towards herself & an authority over herself. It is the responsibility to accept one’s lot, (wasting least energy in grudging & blaming) & to improve upon it. This means using one’s opportunities & capabilities in such a way as to enhance them & not to diminish them, while dealing with threats in such a way as not to multiply them. This is only a prudent rationality. (Moral rationality comes in the remaining two categories.)

The corresponding authority is the personal freedom to employ one’s mind, body & legitimate ‘property’ towards one’s own ends. One’s ends could be altruistic as well but they ought not to be imposed by others.

 The responsibility towards self is optional, in the sense that others (or the State) can not properly compel you, to take care of yourself, if you do not do so on your own. There are so many ‘Self-Harming Vices’ in humans. These include avoidance, indolence, addictions, aversions, obsessions, idiosyncrasies, dogmas & even sheer stupidity, only to name a few. Acting under their spell is to do injustice to oneself. No doubt there exists a lot of injustice from (& to) others to be fought socially & constructively. However, by carrying a ‘victim complex’ OR a ‘guilt complex’ only adds to the self harming vices.

 To counter these vices, of course there are self-enhancing virtues of which humans are endowed with, nurtured into & can imbibe them by practicing volitionally. Self-Enhancers not only do justice to their selves but in turn become capable of doing justice (or something more than justice) to others as well.

Conditional responsibility towards particular others

The second basic category of responsibilities & authorities comprises of the conditional ones towards particular others with whom one engages in voluntary contracts (tacit or express).

 These contracts ought to be truly voluntary, i.e. not made by forces of ‘aggressions’ (non-aggression will be coming under third category.). These contracts ought not to be undefined or ambiguous. One ought not to have accepted responsibilities of which one is not truly capable of shouldering. One ought not cheat or falter away in the midst of carrying through the contract. Even in case of unintended failures, it should be clear as to who is to bear their brunt. Contracts should not be one-sided i.e. authorities & responsibilities should be finite & mutually redeeming.

Some faulty contracts are bound to be there & some breaches of the good ones are also bound to occur. Disputes are bound to arise. Arrangements of resolving disputes & giving verdicts of compliances & compensations must be made. However if some party to a dispute simply refuses to honor verdict then the dispute may enter in the area of crime. It is dealt with in the third category.

Unconditional responsibility towards all others

In this category, every human individual owes an unconditional responsibility towards every other human individual. Seeing the finite & little capacity of single individual, it is clear that this responsibility can not be one of positively supplying something but that of refraining from something.

Here we come to the ‘no aggression’ principle. Not to aggress upon others (except in utter self-defense or minimally invasive prevention) is the most revered principle of Responsibilitarianism. The word freedom is used in many senses. We can talk of ‘inner freedom’ whence one can overcome one’s unruly passions. We can talk of ‘freedom to do things’ in the sense of acquiring a capacity or strength or facility to do things. Such other nuances of the word freedom are also important for Human-Good. Political philosophy, however, must focus upon the freedom from others’ wills being imposed on the individual, by force. All ‘softer’ versions of threat, if investigated by asking the question, “What if I defy?” & take it to its logical conclusion; we discover again & again that the ultimate kernel is physical threat. Power, in the final analysis is violent. Extortion is the basic form of all misappropriations, all injustice.

Thus every human individual has a universal responsibility of not aggressing upon other & has universal authority of not being aggressed by others. The moral right to self-defense (not a right to retribution) is most vulnerable because the individual is always in ultimate minority. Any two individuals allying/coalescing for extorting their common singular victim are enough, let alone ‘all’ (about 6.5 billion). A lynch hunting mob is worst possible threat to individual’s right.

 Second, when anyone acts in self defense, there is always a chance of over-retaliation, i.e. a reverse aggression. Therefore we all need some agency that can protect us from aggression. That is the main moral basis of State. From Responsibilitarian point of view, State-coercion is justified only insofar as it is needed to prevent citizen to citizen coercion.

The Vicious circle

Although we have distinguished the three pairs of responsibilities & authorities, in personal, civil & political arenas, these by no means can remain unaffected by each other. Looking from the ‘demand side’ of coercive power the Responsibility-Deficit occurs in all the three categories as there are evaders & invaders. The vicious circle can be traced right from the responsibility deficit in Self-Responsibility. As individuals fall short in the responsibility to themselves (due to self-harming vices & lack of self-enhancing virtues), their capability of shouldering responsibility to others, diminishes. This leads to failures in responsibilities not only towards themselves but also towards others.

At the same time ‘the others’ do have their authorities as bestowed on them by laws & contracts. Thus the responsibility deficit enters the second sphere. This increases unresolved disputes, breaches of contracts & dishonored verdicts. This process inevitably leads to a situation in which somebody’s rights are encroached. Any authority either has to be redeemed by fulfillment of the corresponding responsibility, so that such authority will retain its ‘voluntary’ basis; OR the authority will have to be coercively imposed on somebody or the other. To the extent authorities become sustainable by coercion, the ‘power’ is required.  The non-violent character of ‘voluntary’ contracts is lost. Crimes breakout & they have to be repressed. Demand for State power increases.

The state power, instead of stopping crimes & implementing verdicts, starts imposing ‘redistribution’ of goods to the self-irresponsible, as well as those who are irresponsible to others, By way of offering bail-outs. The State thereby falsely redeems their responsibilities by bestowing undeserved remittances & grants. For this the State starts extorting the responsible because, qua state, it does not produce any good.

This path of appeasement may earn more popularity but in fact aggravates the problem of responsibility deficit as it rewards the irresponsible & punishes the responsible. Thus the State supposedly the lone protector from all extorters becomes the greatest extorter & the vicious circle continues towards totalitarianism.

Philosophical Blunders of Egalitarianism

What legitimizes the State for neglecting its proper function & usurping proper functions of civil society? The answer lies in the idea of justice of egalitarians who treat the ‘distribution pattern’ as just or unjust without bothering to see whether the incumbents on various point on the distribution ‘curve’ deserve the position or not!

Egalitarians simply assume that all misery is necessarily caused by injustice done by others & all wellbeing is necessarily caused by doing injustice to others. The truth of the matter can be expressed in following equations a) misery = misfortune + self-harming + mutual antagonism + injustice by others & b) Wellbeing = good fortune + self enhancing + mutual complementarity + injustice to others. 

Egalitarians deem any good fortune as if it were snatched away by the fortunate from the unfortunate. Fortuity is neither just nor unjust for it is not a human action at all. (It must be always remembered that fortuity is pertaining to all aspects of life & varies so much from aspect to aspect, in case of same individual, that it is impossible to fix general ranks or to classify individuals as plus/minus on its ‘axis’. Furthermore instead of ranking individuals on the fortuity axis, more often groups are ranked & internal differentiation within groups as well as overlaps amongst groups are overlooked.  )

 If the good fortunes are not ‘deserved as such’ by the fortunate, it does not imply that they are, therefore, deserved by ‘others’ either. The unfortunate deserve compassion but not a right of ‘justice’ to forcefully snatch away the fortunes from the fortunate.

 Politicians, bureaucrats, all the middlemen of ‘redistribution’ who indulge in ‘rent seeking’ for themselves &/or indulge in wastage of the resources to be ‘redistributed’

Indeed, on humanitarian grounds, the fortunate should be generous, compassionate & forgiving to the unfortunate. Responsibilitarianism of course upholds the supererogatory virtues without forgetting that they must flow voluntarily. Responsibilitarianism opposes convicting the fortunate for the crime of being fortunate & extorting them indiscriminately.

This is as far as fortuity goes. But blaming self-enhancers for the self-earned misery of the self-harmers, (or blaming those who achieve mutual complementarity for the self earned misery of those who indulge in mutual antagonism) is a perversion of justice. This idea of equality is nothing but, “Envy draped in a robe of compassion & usurping the chair of justice.”

Paternalism & Demagoguery

Indeed human individuals can fall prey to misjudgments & temptations but they can & do learn from their mistakes & also get expert advice. The State whose proper function is judicial & if necessary, that of enforcement, if called for by citizens qua aggrieved parties, starts deciding on its own as to what is good for its ‘subjects’ & force them to well behave. State invents victimless crimes & bans (which it can not actually implement  but diverts the ‘crime’ in the domain of underworld) them. Such parental stance is called paternalism.

Demagoguery is the misuse of the majority principle of democracy. The majority principle is for attaining maximum possible consent to the election of personnel for holding offices or such other decisions where principles of civil rights are not flouted. Any true democracy ought to be a liberal state & not totalitarianism. If majority principle is interpreted as that a majority has a right to forgo democracy itself, then it is not properly democratic. The rights of liberty must be above the popular opinion at a point in time. This is often called as constitutionalism.

Demagogues are the politicians who try to win over masses by offering them ‘free gifts’. Outright impossible promises are at least better in one sense. These are not to be implemented in any case. But there are promises that can be implemented by taxing others &/or flouting ‘fiscal discipline’. Unjust & ‘positive’ rights (i.e. rights of getting supplies or quotas or share in power) are instituted. Irregularities are ‘regularized’. Demagogues create ‘favor/loyalty’ relations with voters & vote banks. Democracy becomes a method of sharing maximum spoils with maximum people where demagogues make politics an office of profit. In the name of democratizing the market, democracy is marketized.

Collectivism:

Treating any set of individuals as a bearer of a common subject-hood is resorting to collectivism. Only single individual is a proper bearer of subject-hood. It is an individual who switches over to ‘mob mentality’ by misusing the anonymity of being one of a crowd. Mob is set of individuals bearing ‘mob-mentality’.

 Class, caste, gender, language, region, race, nationality or whatever variable that is used to define a set can be misused for resorting to collectivism. It obscures the differentiation & power relations within the set. This suits the vested interest of the powerful individuals within the set.

 Even a proper organization consciously formed by individuals & operating as a singular legal entity does not bear a common subject-hood. Finally it is the individuals that are held responsible, as per their roles, for whatever happens within or ‘to’ that organization. The organization proper (role specific) & the set of individuals engaged in that organization (irrespective of the roles) construed as a ‘collective’, are two different things. Bosses of a firm appeal to their subordinates, “We are one family”, in order to suppress discontent within the organization (as if family were less oppressive than a firm).

 Collective identity lures individuals to believe that whatever happens to any ‘member’ of the collective has happened to ‘them’. They unnecessarily take pride, shame or resentment coming in equal share & multiply the ‘case’ into the ‘case of all’. Within a collective there emerges an evil complementarity between evaders of self-responsibility with the paternalistic invaders of others’ responsibility.

 Collective always needs some external threat or enemy. Collectives project their ‘favorite’ enemy upon each other & convert the false claim of enmity into a self fulfilling prophecy. Collectivism is a tool for political manipulators on one hand & a psychological security cover for the evaders & the mediocre on the other. Advocates of collectivism often give a big cry that One’s individuality itself is socially constructed (hence not real in itself) & deny any self-making of individuality. Even if this claim is, for the sake of argument, held true, it can be answered that ‘the collectivist individuality’ that tries to refuse individuality is also a socially constructed fiction.

Collectivists often make a charge that the individualists treat individuals as atomistic & social organization as a heap of potatoes. Truth is exactly the opposite. Individualists seek to formulate the social ‘molecules’ in terms of actual bonds of ‘role-ions’. It is the collectivists who put a set of individuals into ‘bags’ of collective entities, all (supposedly) equal within the bag, like potatoes.

Collectivists seem to revere solidarity & sense of belonging. No individualist has recommended loneliness. Individualists want to build authentic mutuality & togetherness from within the minds of individuals & not an imposed allegiance or ownership by others. If one does not overcome the fear of loneliness one can not taste the bliss of solitude & it the bliss of solitude that one can hope for authentic togetherness.

Whatever may be the process of social decision making, it can not be other than some structure of connections between severally occurring decisions, in singular minds. Collective mind is a figure of speech at the best & monster of tyranny at the worst.

Responsibilitarianism is a continuing ideological battle, again & again re-awakening the sprit of Enlightenment. Dare to think! Throw away the self-earned-tutelage (Svayam-Arjit-Aashritataa).        

                       

Why not Pantheism rather than Atheism?

Spontaneous Optimism is Faith. Compelled Faith is degrading to humans and blasphemous to God.

No Optimist can supply sufficient evidence to support his position that, on the whole, future of Mankind is bright. (Counter-evidence is more conspicuous.) But all meaningful endeavors are meaningful under this presupposition. Statement of optimism could be, total Existence (matter-energy, consciousnesses, imaginations, contemplations are all included in ‘Existence’.) has an inherent net propensity of perpetually (may be with a few setbacks) moving towards the ‘Better’. (Does this lead to Ultimate perfection or the process would continue asymptotically? My position is in favor of asymptote.)  

Obviously, the ideas of ‘Good’ are certainly not concurrent. But I think they are somewhat convergent. As if it were, vector of the direction of Good for each of us will have some deviation from each other but not more than 90⁰ and certainly not diametrically opposite. (This may also be a part of my optimism.) Peace, Harmony, Justice, Health, Authentic Communication, Joy of Art, Complementarity with non-human Nature are a few items which will occur in almost everyone’s list. May be more convergence with richer lists will also be one implication of the propensity.

No doubt some individuals can sustain their optimism without involving the notion of God. Atheism is a valid philosophical choice. However Atheism is not the only valid choice. You don’t have to prove ‘objective existence’ of your dialogue-partner who enriches your mental and overall life. Ardent Atheists are completely missing the point when they make issue of God into a problem in validity of knowledge. 

God is not a proposed fact at all. He is the complementary pole of a particular set of attitudes towards life. Of course there are multiple notions of God and multiple attitudes invoked by them. Some of such attitudes are deplorable but some are commendable too. Critique of attitudes lies in the value-realm and has nothing to do with objectively provable existence of any entity. As Gabriel Marcel has suggested it is sufficient for God to exist only in ‘second person’ in inner dialogue. Atheists are sealing the dialogue with all Theists indiscriminately and unnecessarily confining themselves in ideological isolation which is detrimental to the laudable causes which some Atheists are pursuing.

Let us focus upon what makes Theism problematic, especially so for liberal perspective. We must identify those features of Theism which ought to be negated for Human Good. Amongst the Vices associated with Theism Divisiveness, Antagonism and Authoritarianism are strong ones and inaction, fatalism and escapism are the softer ones. It must be made clear as to which components in the notion of God are responsible for generating these vices. Before directly expounding Pan-Theism let us focus on the roots of vices associated with Non-Pan-Theisms. Let us call Non-Pan-Theisms as ‘Divisive-Theisms’ for reasons we will see immediately.

Divisive-Theisms divide Existence into Theos and Non-Theos, Divine and Mundane, Sacred and Profane, Chosen ones and Non-Chosen ones and of course, the Fidel and the Infidel. God has to be one! But his messengers are many. Each messenger’s version of God, God’s commands, as well as Name of God varies. There are significant mismatches between these. But one thing is common in Divisive-Theisms is that they demand unconditional allegiance by the followers. Still worse, the message also contains Laws for running society/ Government in ‘this world.’ In case of almost all Divisive-Theisms the commands of God also contain sanctions of Rewards and Punishments, in this world/this birth as well as threats and allurements about other worlds and/Or other births. God in Divisive-Theisms no more remains innocent dialogue partner of Gabriel Marcel but becomes sovereign dictator. Humans are basically sinners deserving to be tamed by God and his representatives. What comes to human lot are fear and guilt, to be ‘overcome’ by wars and tortures/ordeals! No wonder why many a Humanists become Atheists.

But still, the larger optimism which I mentioned earlier is captured by Divisive-Theisms because the God is unconditionally beneficent at least in the long run. God has rule-making power and also he can break his rules if he wishes to bestow his Grace upon the worshiper he finds more lovable. He has an unlimited forgiving nature and can respond to Prayers favorably unless it is the case of infidelity.

The Divisive-Theisms suffer from many logical flaws but a few of them are really devastating to their arguments. Omnipotence is a self-contradiction. Whatever you may be in a position to do you can not do otherwise simultaneously. God will need infinite number of universes to actualize his omnipotence! But ‘we’ are trapped in only one of them which need not be the best of them. Then comes the ultimate dilemma that how Omni-beneficence, Omnipotence and actual Suffering of creatures can all go together?

 Whether I believe in his existence or not, I would give up claim of omnipotence rather than the claim of beneficence. If God is good but not omnipotent he still remains worship-worthy. But if he is omnipotent and still makes his subjects suffer then he doesn’t remain worship-worthy. For me, His worship-worthiness is more important than his less than ‘Omni’-potence or non existence altogether. This is because 95% of my co-travelers on planet earth are dependant on his beneficence and not omnipotence. For worshipers it is the beneficence that keeps their optimism alive. The agents of God emphasize Omnipotence so that they can keep worshipers on ‘the right path.’

By mentioning 95%, I do not at all want to indicate that what majority thinks is right. Question is not right or wrong but the overwhelming fact that many of them are trapped in some or the other Divisive-Theism and you can not merely declare the trap as imagined, and then intellectually prove it and they will be liberated. Due to Atheists’ adherence to making the issue an issue of fact (true or false) is counter-productive. Theists’ emotional reaction to this is evasive or invasive but not communicative. An insurmountable schism has been built. This schism has insulated the dialogue between theists and atheists. The insulation ought to be removed in theological idiom as it is stuck on that side. Scientific idiom goes skew. The dialogue neither brings about convergence nor cordiality. Skew debates are repetitive as they do not find a common plane to cut each other.

Turning back to the ultimate dilemma that how Omni-beneficence, Omnipotence and actual Suffering of creatures can all go together? I repeat that forgoing worship-worthiness is out of question. Even the Divisive-Theisms covertly give up Omnipotence. The very fact that we can sin against his will is sufficient to prove that He is not omnipotent. Whether our sins are limited to those committed in ‘this’ life or accumulated through many earlier birth-lives is a secondary matter. Even if his subjects have earned their suffering, how could he let them do so?

Furthermore omnipotence is cascaded with Perfection which is more of a contradiction. Most of the Theisms also believe that God is an already perfect entity and hence they allow no room for him to become more and more near-perfect. Finally they have to answer that his functioning is beyond our cognitive ability or the evil and suffering that appears to us is a complete illusion, going to the extent that world is a hallucination suffered by God! In such case where is the basis for the optimism with which we started the discussion? Optimism about improvement of this world is replaced by optimism to permanently escape from this world and permanently joining the blissful abode.  

Now let us see how Pantheism is different and more amenable to reason and more accommodative than Divisive-Theisms. According to Pantheism there is nothing outside God. God doesn’t have an ‘outside’. As substance of all substances, he is pervading everything and as an emergent property of all emergent properties (divinity), He is encompassing everything. All dimensions like space time, substance, attribute, composite/component, concept and items subsumed under etc. are inside God. Of course the empirical events occurring in the dimensions are included as well.

Nothing is profane. Sacredness may not be equally distributed. There can be higher and lower degrees of sacredness but no room for the profane inside God. In Atheism the very category sacred/profane is discarded so nothing is sacred. But note that ‘everything is sacred’ is a positive note which is needed by worshipers. The main difference is that in pantheism there is unconditional inclusion of everybody inside God, irrespective of what he/she believes in or does not believe in. Nobody is worth eliminating on theological grounds. There is no devil and none is his agent. A pantheist crusade is inconceivable.

How evil does get accommodated in the Pantheist version of God? God has not achieved perfection. He has to evolve along with evolving matter-energy into life, pre-programmed creatures to self-programmable creatures, savage human to civilized human, unjust civilization to just civilization and so on. All his modicums (we are the most crucial of them at least for his project-Earth) are always at different stages of his evolution. By same token, all humans have not yet sufficiently learnt the art of doing thing in a good way and hence they have to do it in evil way. As long as evil has a function in life and it is not successfully replaced by good, evil will exist. 

But evil has no positive self-existence. It is a lack of good rather than something opposite of it. If and as we learn how to solve our problems without resorting to evil, God’s self perfection process is manifested through us. It is us, who can add into the Glory of God and Grace of God. Glory to the extent we materially progress and Grace to the extent we morally and spiritually upgrade ourselves. God is neither going to punish nor going to reward for simple reason that he does not want to fool himself. Keeping people manageable by threats and allurements is our society’s way of dealing. He can not be satisfied with inauthentic allegiance. He will deem his project successful only, if and when, it really is. Not a false show of it. His dream is that humans become good out of their own intrinsic value-judgment. Managers of societies can cheat worshipers in the name of God but nobody can cheat God. He is witnessing everything that goes on in our minds. We can trick ourselves but not Him. 

 He is undergoing our sufferings and enjoying our happiness as he is our Soul. But he inspires and suggests too. Whenever we find that we excel unbelievably, face agony courageously, help others without any consideration of return, we can be sure that it is manifestation of his Becoming.  In Pantheist version God ceases to be a goal to be achieved, Master to be pleased, Immortal Joy to get merged into. Pursuit is not for Advaita (Non-Dichotomy) for it is already there. It is upliftment that is to be achieved. If we do our part God will respond by unfolding new wonders. Saying by a human that I want to reach to God, it is as stupid as a cell in our body wanting to reach a body. It is already well-placed in it. isn’t it?  

Atheism does not divide people as Divisive-Theisms do. But Atheism lacks any transcendent appeal for uniting. Pantheism unites all of us to help each other in learning, pertaining to the stage one has reached. Earth may not be his only project. As he became matter-energy to be other than consciousness, he is evolving the other way round. He has got infinite patience. What he certainly does not want to do is imposition. We are free to contribute in his project but he will not reject us if we don’t. He is an appeal. He is the Hope. In our moments of intrinsic joy it is he who smiles. In our honest and sincere endeavor, it is Him who buttresses. Each one of us is His unique modicum of His universal essence. His essence is not full and final. It is Becoming.

The main point is that Pantheists can communicate with Divisive-Theists in theological idiom and bring about a change of heart. Atheists have made themselves irrelevant by taking the issue into an Epistemological diversion where the issue does not belong to.

Who are the main thinkers of Pantheism? On which points, do they converge and diverge? What are the technical terms? How the Issue of fortuity is handled? What in us continues after death and why? Are a few of many questions that need to be answered but this was an attempt to show that there can be a third way.