On Being and Action - Part Three

When I am discussing those big things of existence, like the universe, its origins, and the nature of the actions which are implicit in the unfolding of events, when I am discussing such topics, the key to my methodology is to consider the problems by relating them to more concrete things I can understand.  When I consider the creation of all being, for instance, I consider it in terms of the birth of a human being.  By this sort of metaphoric transference, I make sense of those concerns which lay beyond the scope of my understanding.  And I can only do so in relation to all that lays within this scope.  I must always use what I know in order to make sense of what I don't.
This rule, if we can call it that, is in fact the very essence of pedagogy, of learning.  All human beings gain knowledge by taking in the characteristics of new events and making sense of them by way of already known patterns and experiences.  In this way the affective force behind each human subject can be seen as a pattern-building force, a force which leads, generally speaking, from disorganization to organization.  Things are put in their place, given a design by which they take their order in relation to other things.
It can be seen that each human being has a will of its own and can choose to do things which no other person can prevent or control.  You are free to choose, even when you are not free in your actions.  This is a freedom no other human being can take away from you as long as you are living.  Because we can see that there are many human beings who all have their separate will to affect the way things are in existence, we also see that there are multiple determining entities, all with their own individual powers to configure the patterns of things in existence.  It is clear that in all that exists, there are separate entities with separate wills.  In the particularly human and even animal entities, we can see that each entity acts-upon, and does so according to a particular plan.  There are other things that happen according to other plans which are beyond the affect of one alone of these entities.  Some of these plans are family or clan wide, some society wide, others spanning across all of human being.   Even more which are not only beyond human beings but also beyond the realms of action of Earth, the solar system, the milky way galaxy, and so on. There is a myriad of forms.  Indeed, as far as we can see there are things and actions which lay beyond our affective scope.
If we are to follow the earlier stated methodological rule here, then the fact that there are many affective forces in the universe affecting its way of being, and not simply one force affecting all.  Generally speaking we must see that there are forces beyond us which are not determined by us and, following our methodological rule, these forces ought to be determined by some particular planner, or at least a plan.  We could imagine the entire motion of the unfolding universe as directed by a single entity.  Yet even as we see this, it stands to reason that if we are to admit one single affective entity that decides the direction of the universe, then we must admit others.  Which means that all which exists in our universe is not actually all that exists.  This much is necessarily assumed the moment one assumes the presence of a single planner.  If we can conceive of all that exists, then it must include all, and not exclude an entity such as a single planner.
However... if instead of assuming a single planner we assume simply a single plan, without a planner, could we finally account for some problems regarding the genesis or coming-to-be of all that exists?  Let us assume that all that is has a single overarching plan, which is not caused by a single planner.  This means that, while there are many planners within the plan (e.g., human beings), the genesis and course of existence is not itself based on a planner.  This turns classic theological explanations on their head: instead of ontogenesis (the genesis of being) accounted for on the basis of an initial existing force, rather we have an ontogenesis accounted for on the basis of an initial vacuum of force: a lack.  In the most general terms, we have something coming from nothing. 
Let us step back a moment and consider this with regards to the earlier discussion about positive, creative forces and negative, destructive forces.  Is what we have here, in this movement from nothing to something, a movement toward organization, or is it a movement toward disorganization?  Is this movement of all in existence a creative movement or a destructive movement?  The answer to this question lays within a consideration of another question: is there order in nothing?  Or is there disorder?  And another question: can order itself be nothing?  Let me put it another way: how can there be order or disorder in nothing?  This can only be possible if 'order' (and 'disorder') are accepted as no thing, non-entities, which is affective yet not present.