Compare and contrast Alexander Bard's synthemon with Dr Perel's synthemon

 First:

The synthemon worldview, as articulated by philosopher Alexander Bard, is a relatively new philosophical and spiritual perspective that seeks to transcend the traditional dichotomy between theism and atheism. It proposes a monist framework where metaphysical beliefs center on a human-created focal point of divinity, which is not a personal deity but an emergent, participatory concept rooted in human experience and scientific understanding. The term "synthemon" is not widely referenced outside Bard’s work, but it aligns closely with syntheism, a related concept he co-developed, as outlined in the book Syntheism – Creating God in the Internet Age (2014). Below, I explore the nature of God in this worldview, drawing on available information and the syntheist framework, while noting that "synthemon" may be a specific or evolving term within Bard’s philosophy.

Key Features of God in the Synthemon/Syntheist Worldview

1. God as a Human-Created Concept (Syntheos):
   • In the synthemon worldview, God is not an external, pre-existing entity but a construct named Syntheos, representing the collective dreams, aspirations, and existential needs of humanity projected into a singular point. This "God" is not a cosmic ruler or personal being but an emergent phenomenon arising from human consciousness and cultural evolution.
   • Bard describes Syntheos as "the God we choose to believe in and can believe in," emphasizing that this divinity is deliberately crafted to align with modern scientific understanding and spiritual needs. It serves as a unifying symbol for humanity’s quest for meaning without requiring supernatural claims.
2. Monist and Naturalistic Foundation:
   • The synthemon perspective operates within a monist worldview, asserting that there is only one reality, governed by natural laws, where everything can influence everything else. God’s cosmic essence is not separate from the universe but is immanent within it, akin to the Stoic concept of God as the cosmos itself or Spinoza’s pantheistic view of God as nature.
   • This essence is naturalistic, grounded in phenomena like quantum physics, cosmology, and digital interconnectedness, which inform the synthemon understanding of existence. It rejects dualistic notions of a transcendent deity, instead seeing divinity as an intrinsic part of the universe’s structure and human experience.
3. Participatory and Process-Oriented:
   • The essence of God in this worldview is dynamic and participatory. Syntheism draws inspiration from Alfred North Whitehead’s process theology, where reality is a series of events and processes rather than static entities. God’s essence is thus an ongoing, evolving creation shaped by human actions, cultural practices, and collective imagination.
   • Events like participatory festivals (e.g., Burning Man) are seen as syntheist practices, embodying utopian themes and collective awe, which contribute to the manifestation of this essence. These activities foster a sense of community and shared purpose, reinforcing the idea that God is a co-created experience.
4. Non-Dogmatic and Atheological:
   • Borrowing from Georges Bataille’s concept of "atheology" as "the art of non-knowledge," the synthemon worldview avoids rigid beliefs or dogmas about God’s nature. Instead, it embraces a poetic and open-ended approach, where God's essence is less about fixed truths and more about inspiring awe, wonder, and existential connection.
   • This essence is not meant to contradict science but to complement it, providing a spiritual framework that enhances human experience without relying on unverifiable metaphysical claims.
5. Cosmic Consciousness and Interconnectivity:
   • The synthemon God’s essence is tied to the idea of cosmic consciousness, a worldview strategy that emerges from the interplay of religious, intellectual, and aesthetic feelings. It reflects a sense of unity and harmony with the universe, akin to the "cosmic religious feeling" described by Albert Einstein or the transpersonal experiences explored in philosophical literature.
   • This essence is expressed through interconnectedness, where digitalization, globalization, and participatory culture amplify humanity’s ability to co-create meaning. The internet, for example, is seen as a technological enabler of this collective divinity, facilitating global networks of shared experience.

Comparison with Other Worldviews

• Contrast with Theism: Unlike traditional theistic views (e.g., Christianity, where God is a personal, transcendent creator with attributes like omnipotence and love), this synthemon God lacks personhood and exists as a human-made symbol. It does not intervene in the world or possess moral agency.
• Alignment with Pantheism: This synthemon worldview shares similarities with pantheism, particularly Spinoza’s idea that God is identical with nature. However, syntheism emphasizes human agency in creating this divinity, making it more active and participatory than classical pantheism.
• Relation to Naturalism: While rooted in a naturalistic monism, this synthemon perspective diverges from strict naturalism by embracing spiritual practices and a poetic conception of divinity, addressing existential needs that naturalism often overlooks.

Implications for Understanding God’s Cosmic Essence

• Spiritual but Not Supernatural: This synthemon God’s essence provides a framework for spiritual experiences—community, awe, and meaning—without requiring belief in a supernatural being. It caters to atheists and pantheists seeking the emotional and communal benefits of religion.
• Cultural and Technological Context: This essence is deeply tied to contemporary phenomena like digitalization and globalization, reflecting a 21st-century spirituality that leverages technology to foster collective meaning-making.
• Existential Purpose: By framing God as a projection of human dreams, this synthemon worldview encourages individuals to engage actively in shaping their spiritual and cosmic narratives, aligning with modern values of autonomy and creativity.

Limitations and Notes

• The term "synthemon" in Bard's worldview is not explicitly detailed beyond its association with Bard’s syntheism. It may represent a nuanced or localized variation of syntheism, possibly specific to certain philosophical circles or unpublished works by Bard.
• This synthemon worldview is speculative and emergent, lacking the historical depth or widespread adoption of traditional religions. Its focus on human-created divinity may resonate with some, but feel insufficient for those seeking a transcendent or absolute truth.

Conclusion

In Bard's synthemon worldview, God is not a pre-existing, personal deity but a human-crafted, immanent divinity called Syntheos, embodying humanity’s collective aspirations within a monist, naturalistic universe. It is dynamic, participatory, and rooted in modern phenomena like digital culture and scientific inquiry, offering a spiritual framework that complements science while fostering awe and community. This perspective redefines God as a poetic, process-oriented focal point, aligning with the existential needs of a post-theistic age.

Now:

In Michael Perel, MD’s Synchronistic Theistic Monism, the worldview posits a monistic reality where all existence of the cosmos is unified as a single substance, identified as God’s cosmic essence. This essence integrates theistic monism—where God is the sole reality encompassing all phenomena—with Jungian synchronicity, which interprets meaningful coincidences as evidence of divine purpose. Below, I outline the nature of the monistic substance of God’s cosmic essence in this worldview, focusing on its characteristics, role, and implications.

In Dr, Perel’s worldview, Synthemon is the abbreviation of synchronistic theistic monism. In synthemon, God’s cosmic essence is the “fundamental essence” or singular divine substance, created by God (distinct from God to avoid pantheism), which underlies all reality of the cosmos. This substance manifests through dual attributes—physical (extension/matter-energy) and spiritual (thought/consciousness-meaning)—and is governed by metaphysical axioms (identity, causality, non-contradiction, absolutism, necessity, synchronicity). The cosmos, originating with the Big Bang and fine-tuned for life, is a holistic, interconnected system reflecting God’s purposeful, intelligent design. Synchronicity, as a divine principle, weaves physical events with spiritual meaning, enabling tools like Tarot and I Ching to access divine guidance. The following characteristics and processes shape how the divine substance manifests matter, mind, intermediary phenomena (e.g., synchronicities, psychic phenomena), and transcendent realities (e.g., divine truths, spiritual realms).

1. Frequencies of Vibrations

• Definition: The divine substance operates as a dynamic energy field, with varying frequencies of vibrations determining the energetic intensity of its manifestations. This metaphorical or metaphysical concept aligns with the summary’s view of a fine-tuned cosmos and may draw from speculative physics (e.g., quantum fields) or esoteric traditions.
• Role in Manifestation:
  • Matter: Low-frequency vibrations produce dense, physical manifestations (e.g., atoms, planets), corresponding to the physical attribute (extension), as seen in the cosmos’s material structure post-Big Bang.
  • Mind: High-frequency vibrations manifest as consciousness and spiritual meaning, corresponding to the spiritual attribute (thought), enabling self-awareness and divine connection via the Holy Spirit.
  • Between Mind and Matter: Intermediate vibrations produce synchronicities, psychic phenomena (e.g., clairvoyance), or divination outcomes, bridging physical and spiritual attributes, as supported by the summary’s emphasis on synchronicity.
  • Beyond Mind and Matter: Transcendent vibrations manifest divine realms or eternal truths, reflecting God’s timeless nature, accessible through revelation or precognitive dreams.
• Synchronicity: Vibrations facilitate synchronicity by aligning physical events (low-frequency) with spiritual meanings (high-frequency), revealing God’s plan (e.g., a Tarot card resonating with a life event).

2. Numbers of Dimensions

• Definition: The divine substance exists across multiple dimensional planes, each representing a distinct level of reality. This concept aligns with the dual attributes (physical as lower-dimensional, spiritual as higher-dimensional) and Neoplatonic ideas of emanation.
• Role in Manifestation:
  • Matter: Lower dimensions (e.g., 3D/4D spacetime) manifest physical reality, such as the fine-tuned cosmos described in the summary.
  • Mind: Higher dimensions manifest consciousness, where spiritual attributes operate with greater freedom from physical constraints, enabling divine epistemology (revelation, intuition).
  • Between Mind and Matter: Transitional dimensions produce intermediary phenomena, such as synchronicities or astrological correspondences, where physical and spiritual realms intersect.
  • Beyond Mind and Matter: Transcendent dimensions manifest divine realms or the “One,” where God’s essence is fully unified, as per the summary’s Neoplatonic influences.
• Synchronicity: Dimensions enable synchronicity by providing planes for physical-spiritual alignment, allowing God to transcend spacetime and create meaningful coincidences (e.g., a precognitive dream).

3. Active Information

• Definition: Active information refers to the purposeful, organizing intelligence embedded within the divine substance, guiding its manifestations according to God’s intentional plan. Drawing from physicist David Bohm’s concept of active information (where information shapes quantum systems), this characteristic adapts to Perel’s theistic framework, reflecting God’s omniscience and divine epistemology.
• Role in Manifestation:
  • Matter: Active information structures physical reality, embedding fine-tuned constants and laws (e.g., gravitational constant) to support life, as noted in the summary’s evidence of intelligent design.
  • Mind: Active information organizes consciousness, enabling spiritual awareness and intuitive access to divine truths, aligning with the summary’s emphasis on revelation and symbolic interpretation.
  • Between Mind and Matter: Active information facilitates synchronicities and psychic phenomena, where divine intelligence aligns physical events with spiritual meanings (e.g., an I Ching reading reflecting God’s guidance).
  • Beyond Mind and Matter: Active information manifests transcendent truths or divine archetypes, where God’s plan is fully expressed, accessible through Neoplatonic emanation or Taoist harmony.
• Synchronicity: Active information drives synchronicity by embedding divine intent in the cosmos, ensuring meaningful coincidences reflect God’s purposeful guidance, as per the summary’s metaphysical axiom of synchronicity.
• Alignment with Summary: This characteristic supports the summary’s view of God as omniscient, the cosmos as purposefully crafted, and synchronicity as a divine tool for discernment.

4. Creativity of God’s Cosmic Essence

• Definition: The creativity of God’s cosmic essence is its capacity to generate novel, diverse manifestations while maintaining cosmic unity, reflecting God’s omnipotent creative will. This aligns with the summary’s portrayal of God as the intentional creator of a fine-tuned, interconnected cosmos.
• Role in Manifestation:
  • Matter: Creativity produces diverse physical forms (e.g., galaxies, ecosystems), each uniquely expressing the physical attribute, as seen in the cosmos’s organic unity.
  • Mind: Creativity manifests varied conscious experiences (e.g., human imagination, spiritual insights), reflecting the spiritual attribute’s dynamic potential, supported by the Holy Spirit’s guidance.
  • Between Mind and Matter: Creativity generates synchronicities, psychic abilities, and symbolic systems (e.g., astrology, fairy tales), where novel alignments convey divine meaning, as per the summary’s compatibility with symbolic narratives.
  • Beyond Mind and Matter: Creativity produces transcendent realities, such as divine archetypes or spiritual harmonies, reflecting God’s infinite creative potential, aligning with Neoplatonic and Taoist influences.
• Role of Creativity: Creativity ensures the cosmos is not static but dynamically evolving, with God’s will introducing novelty (e.g., new species, cultural symbols) while preserving unity, as seen in the summary’s Heraclitean flux and cosmic interconnectedness.
• Synchronicity: Creativity fuels synchronicity by generating unique, meaningful alignments (e.g., a dream symbol aligning with a life event), reflecting God’s innovative guidance.
• Alignment with Summary: Creativity aligns with God’s omnipotent creation, the cosmos’s fine-tuning, and the integration of diverse symbolic systems, emphasizing divine intentionality.

5. Distinctions

• Definition: Distinctions refer to the differentiated expressions of the divine substance, where the singular essence manifests as distinct entities or phenomena (e.g., objects, minds, events) without compromising its unity. This aligns with the summary’s substance monism and attribute dualism, where distinctions arise within the “One.”
• Role in Manifestation:
  • Matter: Distinctions manifest as discrete physical entities (e.g., stars, organisms), each expressing the physical attribute uniquely, as seen in the cosmos’s interconnected diversity.
  • Mind: Distinctions produce individual consciousnesses (e.g., human minds), each reflecting the spiritual attribute distinctly, enabling personal connection to God’s plan.
  • Between Mind and Matter: Distinctions create intermediary phenomena, such as specific synchronicities or psychic events, where unique physical-spiritual alignments occur (e.g., a particular Tarot card for an individual).
  • Beyond Mind and Matter: Distinctions manifest as unique divine archetypes or spiritual entities, each expressing the “One” in a transcendent form, per Neoplatonic emanation.
• Involvement: Distinctions arise from God’s creative will, allowing the singular substance to express multiplicity while remaining unified, as per the summary’s rejection of Gnostic dualism and emphasis on cosmic unity.
• Synchronicity: Distinctions enable synchronicity by creating specific phenomena that align meaningfully (e.g., a distinct event resonating with a distinct spiritual insight), reflecting divine intentionality.
• Alignment with Summary: Distinctions support the summary’s view of the cosmos as a complex, organic unity, integrating multiplicity within the singular substance, and align with Spinoza’s and Plato’s ideas of unity and multiplicity.

6. Categories

• Definition: Categories are the organizational frameworks or archetypes within the divine substance that structure its manifestations into recognizable types (e.g., physical objects, mental states, spiritual truths). These align with the summary’s Neoplatonic and Aristotelian influences, where categories reflect divine order.
• Role in Manifestation:
  • Matter: Categories define types of physical entities (e.g., solids, liquids, living organisms), organizing the physical attribute into structured forms, as seen in the cosmos’s fine-tuned systems.
  • Mind: Categories structure consciousness into types of mental phenomena (e.g., emotions, reasoning, spiritual insights), reflecting the spiritual attribute’s ordered diversity.
  • Between Mind and Matter: Categories organize intermediary phenomena, such as synchronicities or divination symbols, into archetypal patterns (e.g., Tarot’s major arcana), enabling meaningful interpretation, as per the summary’s symbolic systems.
  • Beyond Mind and Matter: Categories manifest as divine archetypes or eternal forms (e.g., Neoplatonic Ideas), structuring transcendent realities within the “One.”
• Involvement: Categories are embedded by God’s active information, ensuring manifestations are coherently organized, reflecting the summary’s metaphysical axioms (e.g., identity, necessity) and divine epistemology.
• Synchronicity: Categories facilitate synchronicity by providing archetypal frameworks for meaningful alignments (e.g., an astrological pattern categorized as a “transformative event”),
• Alignment with Summary: Categories align with the summary’s emphasis on cosmic order, Neoplatonic harmony, and the structured integration of physical and spiritual attributes.

7. Context

• Definition: Context refers to the relational and situational framework within which the divine substance manifests, shaped by God’s intentional plan and the cosmos’s interconnectedness. This aligns with the view of the cosmos as a holistic system and synchronicity’s role in reflecting divine meaning.
• Role in Manifestation:
  • Matter: Context determines the specific physical forms (e.g., a planet’s ecosystem shaped by its cosmic position), reflecting the physical attribute’s relational nature.
  • Mind: Context shapes consciousness based on cultural, spiritual, or personal circumstances (e.g., a mind attuned to divine guidance via the Holy Spirit), as per divine epistemology.
  • Between Mind and Matter: Context defines synchronicities and psychic phenomena, where specific situations enable meaningful alignments (e.g., a Tarot reading’s relevance to a personal crisis), as noted in divination tools.
  • Beyond Mind and Matter: Context manifests transcendent realities within the divine plan’s eternal framework, where God’s timeless purpose provides the ultimate context, per Neoplatonic influences.
• Involvement: Context is shaped by God’s active information and creativity, ensuring manifestations are relationally meaningful, reflecting interconnected cosmos and Heraclitean flux.
• Synchronicity: Context is critical for synchronicity, as it determines the relevance of physical-spiritual alignments (e.g., a dream’s meaning tied to a specific life context), aligning with the emphasis on meaningful coincidences.
• Alignment:: Context supports the holistic cosmos, synchronicity as a divine tool, and compatibility with symbolic systems like Taoism, which emphasize situational harmony.

8. Dualities and Their Creation

• Definition: Dualities are the complementary polarities (e.g., physical/spiritual, unity/multiplicity, stability/change) within the divine substance, emerging from its attribute dualism (extension/thought). These are not Gnostic or Cartesian oppositions but unified expressions of the singular essence, reflecting Heraclitean unity of opposites and Taoist yin-yang principles.
• How Dualities Are Created:
  • Divine Intentionality: God’s creative will embeds dualities within the substance, allowing the singular essence to express complementary attributes (physical/spiritual), as per attribute dualism.
  • Active Information: Active information organizes dualities into balanced structures, ensuring they reflect divine order (e.g., matter’s stability vs. mind’s change), aligning with metaphysical axioms.
  • Contextual Differentiation: Context shapes how dualities manifest, with specific situations highlighting one pole (e.g., physical in material events, spiritual in synchronicities), while maintaining unity.
  • Manifestation Process: Dualities emerge as the substance differentiates into distinctions and categories, with creativity introducing complementary expressions (e.g., thought vs. extension), as seen in the rejection of dualism and embrace of holistic unity.
• Role in Manifestation:
  • Matter: Dualities manifest as physical stability (e.g., fixed laws), emphasizing the extension pole.
  • Mind: Dualities manifest as spiritual dynamism (e.g., evolving consciousness), emphasizing the thought pole.
  • Between Mind and Matter: Dualities produce synchronicities and symbolic systems, balancing physical and spiritual poles (e.g., a physical event with spiritual meaning),
  • Beyond Mind and Matter: Dualities manifest as transcendent harmonies (e.g., unity/multiplicity in divine archetypes), reflecting the “One,” per Neoplatonic and Taoist influences.
• Synchronicity: Dualities enable synchronicity by providing complementary poles for alignment (e.g., physical event vs. spiritual insight), revealing divine unity..
• Alignment: Dualities align with attribute dualism, Heraclitean flux, Taoist resonance, and rejection of Gnostic dualism, emphasizing cosmic unity.

9. Symmetries, Symmetry Structures, and Symmetry Breaking

• Definition: Symmetries are the balanced, harmonious patterns within the divine substance, reflecting divine order and unity. Symmetry structures are the organized frameworks (e.g., mathematical or archetypal patterns) that govern manifestations. Symmetry breaking is the process by which symmetries are disrupted to create diversity and complexity, aligning with God’s creative will. These concepts draw from physics (e.g., symmetry breaking in the early universe) and Neoplatonic harmony, adapted to Dr. Perel’s theistic framework.
• Role in Manifestation:
  • Matter: Symmetries manifest as universal physical laws (e.g., conservation laws, fine-tuned constants), with symmetry structures organizing matter (e.g., crystalline forms). Symmetry breaking introduces diversity (e.g., varied particles post-Big Bang), as per the fine-tuned cosmos.
  • Mind: Symmetries manifest as coherent mental patterns (e.g., logical reasoning, spiritual harmony), with symmetry structures organizing consciousness. Symmetry breaking enables individual perspectives, reflecting the spiritual attribute’s diversity.
  • Between Mind and Matter: Symmetries manifest as balanced synchronicities (e.g., astrological correspondences), with symmetry structures organizing symbolic systems (e.g., Tarot’s archetypal patterns). Symmetry breaking creates unique alignments (e.g., a specific synchronicity), as per the symbolic systems.
  • Beyond Mind and Matter: Symmetries manifest as divine archetypes or eternal harmonies (e.g., Neoplatonic forms), with symmetry structures organizing transcendent realities. Symmetry breaking introduces novel spiritual expressions, reflecting God’s infinite creativity.
• Involvement:
  • Symmetries: Reflect God’s omniscient order, ensuring cosmic unity, as per the interconnected cosmos.
  • Symmetry Structures: Are shaped by active information and categories, providing archetypal frameworks, aligning with Neoplatonic and Aristotelian influences.
  • Symmetry Breaking: Is driven by God’s creativity and contextual differentiation, introducing diversity within unity, as seen in the Heraclitean flux and fine-tuning.
• Synchronicity: Symmetries enable synchronicity by providing balanced patterns for alignment, symmetry structures organize meaningful coincidences, and symmetry breaking creates unique synchronic events, reflecting divine intentionality.
• Alignment: Symmetries align with the fine-tuned cosmos, Neoplatonic harmony, and Taoist balance, while symmetry breaking supports the dynamic, creative unfolding of God’s plan.

Expanded Framework for Manifestations

The divine substance, modulated by frequencies of vibrations, numbers of dimensions, active information, creativity, distinctions, categories, context, dualities, and symmetries/symmetry structures/symmetry breaking, produces:

• Matter: Low vibrations, lower dimensions, structured active information, stable creativity, physical distinctions, material categories, cosmic context, physical duality pole, and symmetric physical laws with broken symmetries for diversity (e.g., fine-tuned particles, ecosystems).
• Mind: High vibrations, higher dimensions, guiding active information, dynamic creativity, mental distinctions, spiritual categories, personal context, spiritual duality pole, and symmetric mental patterns with broken symmetries for individual consciousness (e.g., spiritual insights, faith).
• Between Mind and Matter: Intermediate vibrations, transitional dimensions, aligning active information, novel creativity, intermediary distinctions, symbolic categories, situational context, balanced dualities, and symmetric alignments with broken symmetries for unique synchronicities (e.g., Tarot insights, precognitive dreams).
• Beyond Mind and Matter: Transcendent vibrations, highest dimensions, eternal active information, infinite creativity, transcendent distinctions, divine categories, eternal context, unified dualities, and symmetric archetypes with broken symmetries for novel spiritual realities (e.g., divine realms, Neoplatonic forms).

Implications for God’s Cosmic Essence

• Theistic Integration: These characteristics/processes (active information, creativity, distinctions, categories, context, dualities, symmetries) reflect God’s omniscient, omnipotent, and purposeful nature, aligning withJudeo-Christian theism and divine intentionality.
• Support for Divination: They explain the efficacy of Tarot, I Ching, and astrology by framing them as tools that access active information, resonate with symbolic categories, and align with contextual synchronicities, per the symbolic systems.
• Holistic Cosmology: The framework unifies physical and spiritual attributes, rejecting dualism, and supports psychic phenomena, dreams, and symbolic narratives as expressions of the divine substance’s interconnectedness, creativity, and symmetry.
• Spiritual Practice: Followers can engage with synchronicities, meditation, or divination to attune to these characteristics, discerning God’s plan through active information, creative symbols, and contextual alignments, fostering spiritual growth and cosmic unity.

Conclusion

In Dr. Perel’s Synchronistic Theistic Monism (Synthemon), God’s cosmic essence is a singular divine substance, created by an omniscient, omnipotent God, manifesting through physical and spiritual attributes. Modulated by frequencies of vibrations, numbers of dimensions, active information, creativity, distinctions, categories, context, dualities, and symmetries/symmetry structures/symmetry breaking, it produces matter, mind, intermediary phenomena (e.g., synchronicities, psychic phenomena), and transcendent realities. Active information embeds divine intelligence, creativity generates novelty, distinctions and categories organize diversity, context shapes relational meaning, dualities create complementary expressions, and symmetries with breaking ensure order and diversity, all reflecting God’s purposeful plan. Synchronicity weaves these characteristics, revealing divine guidance through meaningful alignments, supporting divination tools and symbolic systems within a Judeo-Christian, holistic cosmos

Comparison with Synthemon Worldview (1)

Aspect	Theistic Dual-Aspect Monism (Perel)	Synthemon Worldview (Bard)
Monistic Substance	God’s cosmic essence: A personal, conscious, psychophysically neutral substance manifesting as mind, matter, and beyond via vibrations and dimensions.	Syntheos : A human-created, non-personal symbol of collective aspirations, emergent within a naturalistic monism, not a pre-existent substance.
Nature of God	Personal, purposeful God, immanent and transcendent, orchestrating reality through synchronicity and vibrational/dimensional modulation.	Non-personal, human-crafted construct, immanent within the naturalistic universe, not a divine entity with agency or purpose.
Vibrations/Dimensions	Central: Different frequencies and dimensions produce matter (low), mind (high), intermediary, and transcendent realities, unified under divine intent.	Not emphasized: Phenomena like mind and matter are naturalistic, with no metaphysical vibrational or dimensional framework.
Synchronicity	Core mechanism: Meaningful coincidences reveal God’s purposeful alignment across vibrations and dimensions, bridging mind, matter, and beyond.	Not a focus: Coincidences, if considered, are naturalistic or cultural patterns, not divinely orchestrated.
Role of Human Agency	Secondary: Humans perceive and interpret synchronicities, connecting with God’s essence, but God is the primary agent shaping reality.	Central: Humans create Syntheos through cultural, artistic, and communal practices, shaping their spiritual narrative.
Scientific Integration	Complements science: Vibrations/dimensions align with quantum physics and string theory, framing science as a partial revelation of God’s essence.	Fully naturalistic: Embraces science (e.g., quantum physics, cosmology) as the basis for monism, rejecting supernatural claims.
Theological Orientation	Theistic: Affirms a personal God with divine purpose, rooted in monistic traditions (e.g., Neoplatonism, Christian monism) and Jungian synchronicity.	Atheological: Rejects traditional theism, drawing on Spinoza, Whitehead, and Bataille, emphasizing human-driven spirituality.
Spiritual Practice	Contemplative: Reflecting on synchronicities to connect with God’s essence, fostering personal spiritual growth within a divine framework.	Participatory: Collective practices (e.g., festivals like Burning Man) create shared awe and unity, constructing spiritual meaning.
Problem of Evil	Evil may be lower-vibrational/dimensional expressions, with synchronicity guiding toward harmony, though specific resolution is unclear.	Evil is a human construct or illusion within naturalistic monism, not a theological issue, as there is no personal God.

Key Similarities

1. Monistic Foundation: Both posit a singular reality, rejecting dualism. Dr. Perel’s substance is divine and neutral, manifesting as mind and matter; Bard's synthemonism’s reality is naturalistic, with Syntheos as a human projection.
2. Immanence: Both see divinity as immanent—Perel’s God permeates all manifestations; Bard's Syntheos emerges within human experience and the universe.
3. Modern Context: Both address contemporary needs, integrating science (Perel with vibrations/dimensions, Bard's synthemonism with cosmology) and responding to secularization.

Key Differences

1. Nature of the Substance:
   • Perel: A pre-existent, personal God, manifesting through vibrations and dimensions, with synchronicity as divine expression.
   • Bard's Synthemonism: A non-personal, human-created Syntheos, lacking intrinsic metaphysical properties like vibrations or dimensions, rooted in cultural emergence.
2. Divine Agency:
   • Perel: God actively shapes reality, using synchronicity, vibrations, and dimensions to manifest purpose.
   • Bard's Synthemonism: No divine agency; humans are the sole creators of spiritual meaning, with no pre-existent deity.
3. Metaphysical Mechanisms:
   • Perel: Vibrations and dimensions are central, producing diverse manifestations (mind, matter, beyond) within a theistic cosmology.
   • Bard's Synthemonism: Lacks such mechanisms, viewing phenomena as naturalistic outcomes of a monistic universe.
4. Spiritual Orientation:
• Perel: Theistic and contemplative, focusing on divine connection through synchronicity.
• Bard's Synthemonism: Atheological and participatory, emphasizing collective human creativity.

Comparison with Synthemon Worldview (2)

Aspect	Synchronistic Theistic Monism (Perel)	Synthemon Worldview (Bard)
Monistic Substance	God’s cosmic essence: A personal, conscious substance manifesting via vibrations, dimensions, intentionality, resonance, and polarities, unified under divine purpose.	Syntheos : A human-created, non-personal symbol of collective aspirations, emergent within naturalistic monism, lacking metaphysical characteristics.
Additional Characteristics	Intentionality (divine purpose), harmonic resonance (coherence), polarities (expression balance) shape manifestations alongside vibrations and dimensions.	No equivalent: Phenomena are naturalistic, with no divine intentionality, resonance, or polarities; manifestations are cultural or emergent, not divinely structured.
Manifestations	Matter, mind, intermediary, and transcendent realities arise from God’s essence, modulated by multiple characteristics, with synchronicity revealing divine intent.	Matter and mind are naturalistic; no intermediary or transcendent categories; Syntheos is a cultural projection, not a metaphysical source.
Synchronicity	Central: Aligns intentionality, resonance, and polarities across vibrations/dimensions to produce meaningful coincidences, reflecting God’s purpose.	Absent or naturalistic: Coincidences are cultural or emergent patterns, not divinely orchestrated.
Role of Human Agency	Secondary: Humans perceive synchronicities and connect with God’s essence, but God is the primary agent shaping manifestations.	Primary: Humans create Syntheos through collective practices (e.g., festivals), shaping spiritual meaning without divine agency.
Scientific Integration	Complements science: Vibrations, dimensions, resonance align with quantum physics, string theory; intentionality and polarities add theistic purpose.	Fully naturalistic: Embraces science (e.g., cosmology) as the sole basis, rejecting metaphysical or theistic extensions.
Theological Orientation	Theistic: Personal God orchestrates reality via multiple characteristics, rooted in Neoplatonism, Jung, and Christian monism.	Atheological: Rejects theism, drawing on Spinoza, Whitehead, and Bataille, emphasizing human-driven spirituality.

Key Similarities

1. Monistic Unity: Both posit a singular reality, with Perel’s divine substance manifesting diverse phenomena and Bard's synthemonism’s naturalistic monism unifying existence under human projection.
2. Modern Relevance: Both address contemporary needs, integrating science (Perel with metaphysical extensions, Bard's synthemonism with strict naturalism) and responding to secularization.
3. Immanence: Both see divinity as immanent—Perel’s God within all manifestations, Bard's Syntheos within human culture and the universe.

Key Differences

1. Nature of the Essence:
   • Perel: A personal, divine substance with complex characteristics (vibrations, dimensions, intentionality, resonance, polarities), manifesting reality through divine will.
   • Bard's Synthemonism: A non-personal, human-crafted Syntheos, lacking metaphysical characteristics, emerging from cultural and naturalistic processes.
2. Manifestation Mechanisms:
   • Perel: Multiple characteristics orchestrate diverse manifestations, with synchronicity as a divine bridge.
   • Bard's Synthemonism: No metaphysical mechanisms; manifestations are naturalistic outcomes of human creativity or physical processes.
3. Divine Purpose:
   • Perel: God’s intentionality and resonance drive purposeful manifestations, revealed through synchronicity.
   • Bard's Synthemonism: No divine purpose; purpose is human-generated, rooted in collective aspirations.

Implications for the God’s Cosmic Essence of Dr. Peel's synthemon

• Rich Cosmology: The addition of intentionality, resonance, and polarities creates a dynamic, multi-faceted framework, where God’s essence actively shapes reality with purpose, coherence, and balance, enhancing the vibrational and dimensional model.
• Spiritual Practice: Recognizing synchronicities as alignments of these characteristics encourages contemplative practices (e.g., meditation, journaling) to attune to divine intent, resonance, and polarities, deepening spiritual connection.
• Problem of Evil: Evil may be seen as misaligned vibrations, dimensions, or polarities (e.g., low resonance, imbalanced stability), with synchronicity guiding toward divine harmony, though Dr. Perel’s specific stance requires ebook clarification.
• Existential Meaning: The purposeful, relational essence, modulated by multiple characteristics, affirms a cosmos where all manifestations reflect God’s unified design, offering profound meaning.

Comparison with Bard’s Synthemon Worldview (3)

Aspect	Synchronistic Theistic Monism (Perel)	Synthemon Worldview (Bard)
Terminology	Synthemon = Synchronistic Theistic Monism , a Judeo-Christian theistic monism with dual attributes.	Synthemon = Variant of syntheism , a post-theistic, human-created spiritual framework. Unrelated to Perel’s usage.
Cosmic Essence	God’s monistic substance, created by an omnipotent God, with dual attributes (physical/spiritual), manifesting via vibrations, dimensions, providence, coherence, and revelation.	Syntheos : A human-crafted, non-personal symbol of collective aspirations, emergent within naturalistic monism, lacking divine substance or metaphysical characteristics.
Characteristics	Vibrations, dimensions, providence (guidance), coherence (order), revelation (truth disclosure) shape manifestations, reflecting divine intent.	No metaphysical characteristics; manifestations are naturalistic or cultural, driven by human creativity, not divine attributes.
Manifestations	Matter (physical), mind (spiritual), intermediary (synchronicities), and transcendent realities, unified under God’s plan, guided by synchronicity.	Matter and mind are naturalistic; no divine intermediary or transcendent categories; Syntheos is a cultural projection, not a cosmic substance.
Synchronicity	Central: Divine tool for discernment, aligning physical and spiritual attributes through meaningful coincidences, reflecting providence, coherence, and revelation.	Absent or naturalistic: Coincidences are cultural or emergent, not divinely orchestrated, with no theistic significance.
Role of Human Agency	Secondary: Humans discern God’s will through synchronicity and divination (e.g., Tarot, I Ching), aligning with divine guidance within God’s creation.	Primary: Humans create Syntheos through collective practices (e.g., festivals), shaping spirituality without a pre-existent deity.
Theological Orientation	Theistic: Rooted in Judeo-Christian monism, with God as omnipotent creator, guiding creation via synchronicity and dual attributes (Metaphysical Principle 1).	Atheological: Rejects theism, drawing on Spinoza, Whitehead, and Bataille, emphasizing human-driven, non-dogmatic spirituality.
Ethical/Practical Focus	Ethical commandments (e.g., honor God, seek His plan) and practical use of divination for spiritual growth, fostering unity and wholeness (Commandments 1-3).	Participatory practices (e.g., Burning Man) to create shared awe, with no divine commandments or ethical framework tied to a deity.
Historical Perspective	History unfolds God’s plan, with synchronicities guiding pivotal events (e.g., Newton-Leibniz discoveries), aiming for cosmic wholeness (Historical Principles 1, 10).	History is a human-driven narrative, with no divine plan; collective creativity shapes cultural evolution, not guided by synchronicity.

Key Similarities

1. Monistic Foundation: Both posit a singular reality—Dr. Perel’s divine substance with dual attributes, Bard’s naturalistic monism with Syntheos as a human projection.
2. Modern Context: Both address contemporary spiritual needs, integrating science (Perel with metaphysical extensions, Bard with strict naturalism) and responding to secularization.
3. Interconnectedness: Both emphasize unity—Perel through cosmic coherence and divine unity, Bard through human-driven collective experiences.

Key Differences

1. Nature of the Essence:
   • Perel: A divine, personal substance created by God, manifesting through vibrations, dimensions, providence, coherence, and revelation, rooted in Judeo-Christian theism.
   • Bard: A non-personal, human-created Syntheos, lacking divine substance or metaphysical characteristics, emerging from naturalistic and cultural processes.
2. Manifestation Mechanisms:
   • Perel: Multiple characteristics (providence, coherence, revelation, plus vibrations/dimensions) orchestrate manifestations, with synchronicity as a divine bridge.
   • Bard: No metaphysical mechanisms; manifestations are naturalistic or cultural, driven by human agency, not divine attributes.
3. Theistic vs. Atheological:
   • Perel: Explicitly theistic, with God as the omnipotent creator guiding creation through synchronicity and ethical principles.
   • Bard: Atheological, rejecting theism and divine agency, emphasizing human creativity and non-dogmatic spirituality.

Implications for God’s Cosmic Essence

• Theistic Depth: The addition of providence, coherence, and revelation enriches Perel’s framework, emphasizing God’s active guidance, cosmic order, and communicative presence, aligning with Judeo-Christian focus.
• Practical Guidance: These characteristics enhance the use of synchronicity in divination (e.g., Tarot, I Ching), as followers discern divine providence, recognize coherent patterns, and receive revelatory insights, per ethical principles.
• Historical and Cosmic Unity: The characteristics support the view of history as God’s unfolding plan, with providence and coherence driving synchronic events and revelation unveiling divine purpose.
• Spiritual Practice: Followers can use meditation (e.g., on mandalas), prayer, or divination to attune to these characteristics, fostering alignment with God’s will and cosmic unity.

Comparison with Bard’s Synthemon Worldview (4)

Aspect	Synchronistic Theistic Monism (Perel)	Synthemon Worldview (Bard)
Terminology	Synthemon = Synchronistic Theistic Monism , a Judeo-Christian theistic monism with substance monism and attribute dualism.	Synthemon = Variant of syntheism , a post-theistic, human-created spiritual framework. Unrelated to Perel’s usage.
Cosmic Essence	Singular divine substance, created by God, with physical (extension) and spiritual (thought) attributes, manifesting via immanence, resonance, temporality (plus vibrations/dimensions).	Syntheos : A human-crafted, non-personal symbol of collective aspirations, emergent within naturalistic monism, lacking divine substance or metaphysical attributes.
Characteristics	Immanence (God’s presence), resonance (symbolic meaning), temporality (time dynamics) shape manifestations, reflecting divine intentionality and synchronicity.	No metaphysical characteristics; manifestations are naturalistic or cultural, driven by human creativity, not divine attributes.
Manifestations	Matter (physical), mind (spiritual), intermediary (synchronicities, psychic phenomena), and transcendent realities, unified under God’s plan, guided by synchronicity.	Matter and mind are naturalistic; no divine intermediary or transcendent categories; Syntheos is a cultural projection, not a cosmic substance.
Synchronicity	Central: Divine principle aligning physical and spiritual attributes through meaningful coincidences, reflecting immanence, resonance, and temporality.	Absent or naturalistic: Coincidences are cultural or emergent patterns, not divinely orchestrated, with no theistic significance.
Role of Human Agency	Secondary: Humans discern God’s plan through synchronicity, divination (e.g., Tarot, I Ching), and revelation, aligning with divine guidance within God’s creation.	Primary: Humans create Syntheos through collective practices (e.g., festivals like Burning Man), shaping spirituality without a deity.
Theological Orientation	Theistic: Rooted in Judeo-Christian monism, with God as omniscient, omnipotent creator, guiding creation via synchronicity and dual attributes.	Atheological: Rejects theism, drawing on Spinoza, Whitehead, and Bataille, emphasizing human-driven, non-dogmatic spirituality.
Philosophical Influences	Neoplatonism, Spinoza, Heraclitean flux, Taoism, Hermeticism; rejects Gnostic and Cartesian dualism, integrates divine epistemology.	Spinoza, Whitehead, Bataille, Nietzsche; inspired by digital culture and participatory practices, rejects supernaturalism.
Divination/Symbolic Systems	Supports Tarot, I Ching, astrology, psychic phenomena, and symbolic narratives as tools for accessing divine truths via synchronicity.	No divine basis for divination; symbolic systems, if used, are cultural constructs, not tied to a cosmic essence.

Key Similarities

1. Monistic Foundation: Both posit a singular reality—Perel’s divine substance with dual attributes, Bard’s naturalistic monism with Syntheos as a human projection.
2. Interconnectedness: Both emphasize unity—Perel through divine integration and synchronicity (e.g., quantum entanglement, ecological webs), Bard through collective human experiences.
3. Modern Relevance: Both address contemporary needs, integrating science (Perel with fine-tuning, Bard with cosmology) and responding to secularization.

Key Differences

1. Nature of the Essence:
   • Perel: A divine, non-pantheistic substance created by an omniscient, omnipotent God, manifesting through immanence, resonance, temporality, and synchronicity, rooted in Judeo-Christian theism.
   • Bard: A non-personal, human-created Syntheos, lacking divine substance or metaphysical characteristics, emerging from naturalistic and cultural processes.
2. Manifestation Mechanisms:
   • Perel: Immanence, resonance, temporality (plus vibrations/dimensions) orchestrate manifestations, with synchronicity as a divine bridge, reflecting God’s plan.
   • Bard: No metaphysical mechanisms; manifestations are naturalistic or cultural, driven by human agency, not divine attributes.
3. Theistic vs. Atheological:
   • Perel: Explicitly theistic, with God as the creator guiding creation through synchronicity, divination, and divine epistemology.
   • Bard: Atheological, rejecting theism and divine agency, emphasizing human creativity and participatory spirituality.

Implications for God’s Cosmic Essence

• Theological Coherence: The new characteristics (immanence, resonance, temporality) reinforce Perel’s Judeo-Christian framework, emphasizing God’s omnipresence, symbolic communication, and timeless guidance, aligning with the focus on divine intentionality and synchronicity.
• Support for Divination: These characteristics explain the efficacy of Tarot, I Ching, and astrology by framing them as tools that access divine immanence, resonate with symbolic truths, and align with God’s temporal plan.
• Holistic Cosmology: The framework unifies physical and spiritual attributes, rejecting dualism, and supports psychic phenomena, dreams, and symbolic narratives as expressions of the divine substance’s interconnectedness.
• Spiritual Practice: Followers can engage with synchronicities, meditation, or divination to attune to divine immanence, recognize symbolic resonance, and navigate divine temporality, fostering alignment with God’s plan.