Having some trouble rectifying something, since my English not as good as I want it to be. To be short, is it proper to reflect in a fictional work about the nature of the world's animism being transformed by notions of its own pandeism and vice versa? I ask because the land where the antagonists dwell have accepted this animism with their own brand of metempsychosis and incorporated it into certain religious rites. This religion rejects the authority of the living divinities in the world. It matters because it is the core reason behind the nature of the conflict. The explanation is provided by a lord much like a lesson on the rise of a gestalt pandeism that is independent of the worldly animism that has incorporated ethereal concepts. The nature of metempsychosis is reflected and aided (or perhaps enhanced) by an explanation of a transcendental schemata rooted in a divine/mortal apperception of deism. The construct is debated because the animism instead infers convergence in metempsychosis. The notion is beyond the divines themselves, yet the high priestess appears and explains it in the nature of transcendental impermanence. Thus the lord's schemata is procedural rather than conceptual, for it is constrained by the state of existence afforded to the divines. The nature is instead revealed to be about the belief in convergence and self-realization which sunders reality with spiritual immateriality. That is applied to the known workings of the world to generate three theories about the antagonist's goals. Sorry if this is a tough subject, just wanting some feed back on whether or not the reader would prefer ignorance to an exceedingly convoluted explanation in philosophy and spirituality.