We Are God The Philosophy of Alan Watts

This is a continuation of the first question.
I really don't feel that way. I'm talking about cosmopsychism. It is more accepted than an abstract entity that creates and is distinct. You can see it as a continuation of Spinoza's pantheism. See: https://www.eol.co.il/articles/1112

If you want to discuss any argument, please upload it here. I find it difficult to read articles as part of a question in an answer. Forgive me. I have already written about Spinoza's pantheism in the second notebook. In my opinion, it has nothing to do with atheism.

The proponents of matter claim that everything that exists is physical reality, and in this case the organization of particles in the brain causes us to experience things that we perceive as abstract. The proponents of spirit claim that spirit is the only thing that can be assumed to exist, and that physical reality is an illusion created by that spirit. There are many holes in both of these theories that have caused thinkers to look elsewhere.
According to another direction that has gained popularity, matter and spirit are not separate things of which only one exists. The view known as panpsychism holds that some simple form of consciousness is a fundamental property of particles in the universe. Spirit, therefore, exists in matter, and hence consciousness growing out of a biological brain is a natural thing. Although consciousness is indeed fundamental in nature, it is not fragmented like matter. The idea is to extend consciousness to the entire fabric of space-time, as opposed to confining it to the boundaries of individual subatomic particles. This view, known as cosmopsychism, says that there is only one, universal consciousness. All other 'beings' are forms of expression of this consciousness.

I personally am not one of the supporters of matter or of spirit, but of dualism. It seems completely reasonable and natural to me, and therefore I am not looking for other explanations. The text here is part of a collection of discussions about which I feel that these are word combinations (like pantheism, for example). The claim that every particle has consciousness or some kind of conscious component, that when you combine the particles and create a person, consciousness is also created, is a claim parallel to emergentism, only without this panpsychic text. I have addressed this idea in my books on the science of freedom. In short, I see no benefit in this thesis, since it still assumes dualism. However, now dualism exists in every particle. You can wrap this in text about everything being one and it stems from this, but these are empty words.
I'm sorry that you decided to invent an invention that has no basis at all, consciousness becomes a natural consequence of matter. To the same extent that if I assume that every particle has God, then the material complex will also yield God. And if I assume that every particle has a demon wing, then demons will naturally grow from the material whole. As mentioned, I do not engage in these empty discussions, because in my opinion they are a waste of words.

So without any puns, why assume an abstract entity created and not nature itself, which is composed of both matter and spirit?

I didn't understand. That nature created itself? What difference does it make if there is also a spirit in it?

Because you assume that a complex creation has a creator. So the creative element is the spirit in matter.

So the spirit in matter (the devil knows what it is) is God.

Which is nature.

Is that his foreign name? Reminds me of the gematria precepts that are beaten God in the gematria of nature.
And seriously, don't you notice that you're playing with words without saying anything?
Do you mean to say that nature created itself? Or is there something that is part of nature that created nature? These are empty words.
Or is there something outside of nature that created nature? Then it's God.

Wow, really, I understand the intent of his claim that that primary element in nature is primordial!

I don't understand what the problem is? Why should we assume there is some abstract being who created? Nature is made of itself and we are a symptom of its nature.

So this primordial element is God.
Or are you just bringing up the alternative of Aristotle's introductions? For that, you really don't need Watts or panpsychism and other psychic isms that don't say anything.
See my book, the first one, regarding all these arguments (I mean the few that actually say anything).

It is necessary, because creation does not arise by itself. There are basic qualities in nature, such as mental qualities, a kind of mental subtleties that in certain structures of a larger order, those subtleties become conscious experience. Thus, there is no need for a separate watchmaker to create, nature is all that there is and we are a symptom of its nature.

Well, this is where I completely lost you. My poetry department belongs to a different department than my philosophy department.

I really don't understand why. Just a little different words from how I explained panpsychism above. In any case, no matter how you phrase it, it explains complexity without God nicely. Nature is what it is and that's it.

A. Why does complexity need an explanation at all? And how does your psycho explain it? After all, there is a complex side to it. So this complex side needs an explanation if you accept A.

The cause itself

Sorry, but I'm getting tired. These are circular messages that lie somewhere between poetry and literary Mandarin, languages I don't understand. The relevant questions on these topics have been answered well (in my opinion) in my first published book (and also a bit here in this thread).

No matter how it is phrased, the clear argument here is that there is no need for any God. It may be hard for you to admit that there really is no need, but that is what there is.

I followed the discussion,
At this time in my life it is a bit difficult for me to define my affiliation in terms of faith and worldview,
I assume that part of the reason I came to the above discussion,
I enjoy hearing a variety of theories and enriching myself with knowledge,
I must say that the statement about your worldview being dualism “This seems completely reasonable and natural to me and therefore I am not looking for other explanations. The text here is part of a collection of discussions about which I feel that these are word-hoardings..”
And throughout the entire thread, you actually sounded a bit condescending. I would say,
It seemed to me that there was a desire here for a philosophical discussion about faith and awareness (in general), but because the general direction did not align with your faith, you felt quite confident in belittling his words and placing them somewhere between poetry and Madrinit, and to that I say - a shame, but your right,
The minimum is to respect the other's faith.

I respect everyone's belief, as long as it is presented and reasoned. There was a meaningless jumble of words here (in my opinion). If this statement sounds arrogant to you, I'm sorry. That's exactly how I feel and that's what I'm saying.

Matter and spirit are childish concepts that exist only in the imagination.
There is no measuring instrument that measures the amount of matter or the amount of spirit.

Any discussion of these belongs to discussions of fantasies only.

It seems to me that what he is trying to say (in a somewhat messy way and perhaps not exactly like me) is that there are many consciousnesses that communicate with each other by transmitting information, that information is the phenomenon of the world. But what actually exists are only the consciousnesses. Therefore, all that exists are consciousnesses that hallucinate the world.
In my humble opinion, the prevailing view is more reasonable.