© 2010 Jean Royer
© 2010 French-speaking Association of Readers of the Urantia Book
Is it so surprising that humans know practically nothing about the Directors of Power? In the booklet devoted to them, the 29th, the Universal Censor admits his inability to describe them to us and if he indicates their fields of action it is in a rather vague manner. We are here in an apophatic position, (see negative theology).
However, they are created beings and as such they enter into our conceptual possibilities, but what can we say in this same booklet about the first two groups mentioned: The Master Organizers of Primary Exteriorization Force and the Associated Master Organizers of Transcendental Force?
We are told that they are neither creators nor creatures, but then what are they? To try to understand, we must refer to their status as absonite beings and inevitably fall back into a definition that is at least partly negative: The absonite level of reality is characterized by things and beings without beginning or end and by the transcendence of time and space. Absonitarians are not created; they are exteriorized - quite simply: they are. UB 0:1.12
By neither creators, we can imagine that they are distinguished from the Master Spirits or Creator Sons in the sense that they have no descendants; by neither creatures, we are told that they are exteriorized.
This last term does not please everyone, on the pretext that the English ‘eventuated’ has a temporal connotation while the French has a spatial connotation. For me, it is on the contrary a stroke of genius of Jacques Weiss to have perceived that French uses a spatial term where English uses a temporal term. French says le jour où, while English says le jour quand (the day when).
But what is it actually about?
Curiously, Christians were faced with a problem, if not identical, at least similar, from the end of the 2nd century, when they had to explain the origin of Christ. Remember the creed: Begotten, not created, (in Latin: genitum, non factum).
I am sure that this formula intrigued more than one person before we spoke of artificial procreation or extra-uterine fertilization. But still, it was about the Son and we understood that he was engendered, even if other questions arose about the maternal side of the affair.
To externalize it requires a little more imagination. It is a being that has no beginning and that will have no end but that is still not qualified as eternal and even less existential.
It is a being that is included in the Deity, but only ‘shows itself’ when the time is right.
But then, why do we not say that the Eternal Son who comes from the Father is an absonite being? No doubt because it is indeed a being not only eternal, but existential, an Absolute and an Infinite.
So, could we say of a Creator Son that he is absonitarian?
For instance, our Creator Son is indeed numbered 611,121, but could it not be said that the fullness of the 611,121 ideation of the Eternal Son has always existed, as has the fullness of the 611,121 personality concept of the Universal Father? When the fullness of the absolute spiritual ideation in the Eternal Son meets the fullness of the absolute personality concept in the Universal Father, when this creative union is completely and finally achieved, when such absolute identity of spirit and such infinite unity of personality concept are produced, then, at that very moment, and without any of the infinite Deities losing any of his personality or prerogatives, a new, original Creator Son in full possession of his faculties springs into existence; he is the only-begotten Son begotten of the perfect ideal and the potent idea whose union produces this new creative personality endowed with power and perfection. UB 21:1.1
Is it simply because it is a question of serialization that we do not use the term externalized? Or does the relationship of filiation take over and do the revealers also prefer the term engendered?
We’ve come part way with the term externalized, but the first two groups are also referred to as transcendental. What about this term in The Urantia Book?
Transcendentals are subinfinite and subabsolute but superfinite and supercreatural. Transcendentals eventuate as an integrating level correlating the supervalues of absolutes with the maximum values of finites. From the creature standpoint, that which is transcendental would appear to have eventuated as a consequence of the finite; from the eternity viewpoint, in anticipation of the finite; and there are those who have considered it as a “pre-echo” of the finite. (UB 105:7.1)
There are therefore at least three points of view, which explains why the transcendental is at the same time considered as preceding the finite and following the finite, Transcendentals. This suprafinite level follows the finite progression (by anticipating it).(UB 106:0.5)
But who is going to explain this beautiful image of pre-echo of the finished product?
I think we’ll have to wait for the next period revelation!
Jean Royer