Conscious Cost and God: The Un-foreclosable Addressee

Engineering notes

Engineering notes will be added by the aipentium editorial team.

Chinese explanation / 中文解读

中文解读待补充：本站会优先为大语言模型、生成式AI、ChatGPT相关技术、计算机视觉、深度学习等高价值论文补充中文说明。

Original abstract

This paper works from below — from a social ontology of cost, recognition, and foreclosure, rather than from the limits of language or being — toward one function of the concept of God, and arrives at a single functional claim: before a rule, the certificate of an answer’s sufficiency is always the answerer’s to issue; before an addressee it never is — so the office of keeping a question open belongs to an addressee, not a rule. Treated functionally, with the questions of God’s existence, nature, and intent set aside, God occupies not the position of the answer that closes the question whom does this serve? but that of the un-foreclosable addressee whose standing keeps it open. The argument extends the Conscious Cost account — developed in earlier work for interpersonal relations, commons, markets, and democratic polities — to its highest name, using the same apparatus: the gap between the cost an arrangement exacts and the cost it is granted (Cq, Cs), the reach of concern (R), voluntariness (V), tacitness (T), and the independence of self-worth (P). The account claims one facet, not a description of God; it situates itself against the apophatic tradition — the via negativa, Tillich, Marion, Caputo — and locates its difference in derivation, not doctrine. The program from which the account derives began in autoethnographic observation rather than a literature-first survey; the present paper extends its apparatus by structural analysis. Keywords: Conscious Cost; foreclosure; the un-foreclosable addressee; functional account of God; apophatic theology (via negativa); social ontology; autoethnography AI-Use Disclosure The author conceived and developed the theory and its argument and directed all substantive content. Generative AI tools — Anthropic’s Claude, OpenAI’s ChatGPT, xAI’s Grok, and Google’s Gemini — were used as aids in drafting, structuring, editing, and translating the text between Japanese and English, and in cross-checking and stress-testing arguments; each model’s feedback was reviewed and selectively incorporated by the author, who reviewed all AI-assisted text and takes full responsibility for the content, including any errors.

Links and sources

Comments