Just to archive the following:
We start with the glossary entry for the Solitary God:
Solitary God—“Allonara Yulah” (Kianni). The name used by Fanim to denote the transcendent singularity of their supreme deity. According to Fanim tradition, the God is not, as the Inrithi claim, immanent in existence, nor is He manifold in the way described by the Latter Prophet. The transcendental nature of Yulah is the primary reason Inrithi theologians dismiss Fanim apologia as mere hokum. If God is set apart from Creation, they argue, then God is merely a moment in a larger, unexplained system. Pokariti mystical traditions, however, hold that Yulah is an infinite function, that transcendental divinity possesses no being, and thus moots the “Mereology Problem.” Yulah is the force that makes all things happen. Inrithi critics reply by simply asking how functions are not parts of a greater whole. The problem with Fanimry, they contend, is the inability to countenance the fact that the God of Gods can be unconscious. This perpetually strands them with a partial concept of deity, and therefore countless questions they have no means of answering. The Pokariti mystical tradition generally responds by demonstrating the way various Inrithi critiques actually presuppose the transcendental functions of Yulah, which they require as necessary conditions of coherence.
Now that is hard to parse, because it is written in a rather off-hand manner. So, here I try to rephrase it's highlights.
I think part of this is just a "mirroring" of real-world theological debate with Eärwan framework. It's attempting to deal (I think) with the seeming fact that the Solitary God doesn't seem to be intercessional/manifest in the world. The Fanim take this to mean that it's transcendent, that is, transcending
mere Being and is "greater." The Inrithi say if that if that is the case, then what is this "system" that is more than Being? The "Mereology problem" (mereology is the study of how parts relate to each other) is something like how does a transcendent Being that is outside Being, well, be? And likely more importantly, how does it interact
with Being without being
part of Being? Because, as transcendent, how could it both Be and not Be at the same time? The Fanim want to invoke an idea of "infinity" to encapsulate how it both beyond Being and also is not just "one with Being" (I think). That is, it both is all Being and it is no mere Being, it's what makes thing Be. Of course the Inrithi counter by asking, essentially, how this "force" of Being is apart from Being itself?
The "short answer" is, like we talked about before, is something more akin to there not being a "simple" or clear answer to these things. The Fanim pretty much say, "it's simple, The Solitary God is the unity principle, it's transcendent,
all Being but also beyond
mere Being, it's the sort of demiurge that makes Being be." The Irithi say, "that makes no sense, how something can be apart from Being and yet participate in Being? Let alone be that thing that is the fount of all Being." And there is no real "answer" to this, minus Bakker's extra-textual point that the Fanim are, in fact, "one of the most wrong." But that doesn't really tell us much.
I am not sure what "function" means there exactly, but the next sentence of it as a "force" makes more sense to me. Unless as a "infinite function" it means the literal infinite function
ing of the Universe. Again, as a sort of "animating force." So the "function" would be the actual function
ing. It's just a more confusing way to tensing it (or whatever the grammatical term is for that.)
I think reading "functioning" for "function" in that sentence makes it clearer though. Which, I think, jives with the next two sentences, the first which clarifies the idea of "function" as notional "force" and the second, as a critique, which asks is not a "functioning" or "force" a part of the whole?
I think the last sentences are about a sort of Nominalism maybe, or critique of the transcendental/Universals. The Inrithi are saying, if God if fully transcendent, then it is all Universal and no Particular and so isn't intercessional or much of anything "tangible." The Fanim retort that the Inrithi presuppose Universals/transcendence in their gods, so why are they upset about it when they need it to have any coherence anyway.
As always, take all this with a huge dose of salt grains, since I am not a theologist or even a smart person, it's just how I read it.
