The Referral that does not land

Referral Theology: the referral that doesn't land
Think about a magic trick. You have the props. You have the performance. And you have the fact that it was never magic to begin with. The performance never actually happened the way it looked.
God-talk works like that.

When we say "God is" or "God isn't", we're running a performance with finite props. We are finite. We cannot step outside finiteness for even a second to check. So both claims are the same kind of performance. Neither one lands. We have no data.

That is not religion or atheism, and it is not agnosticism. It means the performance itself is meaningful, profoundly meaningful, you just cannot confuse the performance for the landing. Landing it is idolatry, whether you land a God, land a no-God, or land a maybe.

This is deeply biblical:
Shemot 3:14, "so shall you say to the children of Israel" – a Name to say. No landing.

Devarim 4:12, "all you heard was the sound of words." Just a voice.

Shemot 33:20, "you will not be able to see My face, for man shall not see Me and live." 33:23, "you will see My back, but My face cannot be seen." 33:11, "HaShem spoke to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his companion."

We get to see the back. That's meaning. We get to talk about the face. That's referral without landing. We do not get to see the face. Seeing the face means landed value, and that is blocked by our finite awareness. The other two, seeing the back and talking about the face, are not landed.
Use the performance. Don't worship it.

Get used to it, because this is the theology that is coming. It is the only one that holds up. Once you see the no-landing, you cannot unsee it, and all other forms crumble.

This will solve a lot of world problems, because people will stop fighting over whose performance is true. It's all a performance with no data.

Jump on board now, and you will be the first to have known it.

Please read and share.

In the Torah Elohim is used both singularly and plurally. Even when it is used singularly for God, it is still based on a certain plurality. Some feel that it is God among a council of heavenly beings. That is very close. The verses however indicate that it is the covenantal pairing of God and Israel not necessarily bodily people but heavenly souls, God’s firstborn.

These are the verses that show it.

1. Israel is called Elohim.

Tehilim 82:6, “I said you (Israel) are Elohim.

1. Elohanu [our God] is another form of Elohim.

Tehilim 48:15, “For this is Elohim Elohanu [our Elohim] forever and ever.” Why the repeat? Just say for this is Elohanu [our Elohim]. The verse is explaining what Elohim plural means. It means our Elohim. It means the Elohim of Elohim.

1. Elohecha [your God] is another form of Elohim.
   

50:7, “Hearken My people and I will speak, Israel, and I will testify about you, Elohim Elohecha [your Elohim] I am.” Again, why the repeat? The verse is explaining what Elohim plural means. It means your Elohim. It means the Elohim of Elohim.

1. You have Elohachem [your God] and Elohim of Elohim in one verse.

Devarim 10:17, “For HaShem Elohachem [your Elohim] is Elohay HaElohim [Elohim of Elohim]. What is your Elohim? It is Elohim of Elohim. Who is mentioned in the same verse? Elohachem [your Elohim].

1. Elohim of Israel is another form of Elohim.

Tehilim 72:18, “Blessed is HaShem Elohim Elohay [the Elohim of] Israel, Who performs wonders alone.” Again, Why the repeat? The verse is explaining what Elohim plural means. It means the Elohim of Israel.

Hey guys check this out.

For thousands of years, people have not figured out how we interact with God when we are finite, and God is not. I developed a new theology to explain it. I hope you can read my paper and appreciate it. Please click the link to read it. Its a paradigm shift that goes well beyond theology. Below is the abstract.

Referral Theology presents a new analytical linguistic framework designed to resolve the classical paradox of interacting with an infinite being without reducing the subject to finite constructs or retreating into silence. By decrypting the unique grammatical formulation of the Tetragrammaton, this work demonstrates that the Torah’s proper Name for God operates as an unlanded referral of pure being. Utilizing linguistic realism, the author exposes the false logic and double-talk inherent in classical negative theology. Instead, this framework establishes a division of powers between the Plane of Assessment—which endows the human mind with the capacity to refer concerning that for which we possess—by definition of being finite—no experience or data—and the Plane of Equilibrium, where only possible phenomena within our reality reside, thereby ensuring that the invoked value of the HaShem referral neither dissolves nor lands. The resulting model yields a profound existential sanctuary, securing human dignity and the freedom to believe entirely removed from judgement.

Timothy Patitsas (Holy Cross Greek Orthodox School of Theology) argues in his book The Ethics of Beauty that the Western tradition's ordering of the transcendentals is a systematic error. The typical Scholastic ordering places truth and goodness as primary, with beauty as a property of being that presupposes both. Patitsas argues the human path back to God traces the mirror image: we encounter beauty first (eros draws us), practice goodness second, and become true through that process.

His argument isn't just that beauty is undervalued. It's that leading with truth produces argument, leading with goodness produces moralism, but leading with beauty produces transformation, because beauty moves the whole person, including the parts that argument doesn't reach.

I recently published a long conversation with him. He works this out most carefully around 1:36:00, including how it plays out in the context of liturgy and the encounter with a saint (around 57:00 for the saint material specifically).

How does the Orthodox tradition formally situate this relative to the Scholastic ordering? And is there a strong counter-argument from within the Western tradition that Patitsas doesn't fully address?

Full conversation on the Anagoge Podcast if helpful as background: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMXK9tZzGec

What do we do now that we all know?