Monism

[Rasputin]

Hi, I'm new to this forum so I'm throwing something out there to start a discussion.

I'm a monist. I used to be a Neoplatonist, yet found Plotinus contradicts himself by saying the One transcends reason yet ends up describing the One with logical descriptors to the point that he posits an opposite of the One, a terminus of the material world, a principle of evil that exists in opposition to the One. It's kind of hard to imagine a unitary essence that includes a real good and evil.

Solution: There is no good and evil in the manner we usually think of it. I used to love the concept of good as opposed to evil, yet my experience has taught me these are just illusory categorical dichotomies made by the rational human mind trying to understand through logic what is ineffable. True, some actions and attitudes are more beneifical than others. For examaple, the concept of universal love is more beneifical to everything that exists, to essence itself, than the lack thereof.

I find Buddhism closest to the mark on this issue. It focuses on noetic experience, not rational arguments, as the starting point in our spiritual development. This experience leads to an understanding of the unity of reality, and from this place, it can be seem that arguments of pluralism are inherently contradictory. Concepts such as good and evil are useful if one is operating from the relative level of truth - the illusion of this world. The absolute level of truth reveals that such dichotomies are illusory.

The consequence of this is that is is no more true that there is no good and evil and it is that there is good and evil, or that there is both good and evil and no good and evil, etc. I'm not saying there is no good and evil, nor am I saying there is. Either description falls short of describing essence in it's suchness.

Trying to justify our existence with concepts such as good and virtue is really to indluge in ego gratification which clouds our perception of essence and keeps our true nature hidden from us. Since essence is unitary, though, it is just as accurate to say there is no distinction between individuals as it is to say there is no individual. Realizing non-duality, the question of good and evil ceases to have meaning because to happiness of other beings is no different than our own happiness.

[Meleagar]

In order to experience, there must be apparent duality - self and other. Experience requires distinction between identity and context, which is why "being one with god" is a state that cannot be actualized.

I prefer to look at it this way; the dreamer is god, and god is never awake. We are manifestations, intentions of god made manifest within the mind of god, just as when we dream we are both self and context but maintain conscoiusness seperate from the "whole"; even when we realize we are dreaming and are the dreamer, while this changes the nature of our dream, it doesn't change the fact that we are still dream manifestations within the dream.

So yes, I agree that everything is one "thing", the whole, whether you call it God or not.
_________________
http://spiritualintelligentdesign.blogspot.com/

[Rasputin]

Thanks for the reply. Actually, I pretty much agree with what you are saying. The thing is, in a sense, there is a subject experiencing and an object experienced. If our consciousness attained absolute unity with god, there would be no more consciousness on our part. In Buddhism, it is no more accurate to state that the self does not exist than to say it does exist. This does not posit a dichotomy, because it is not merely stating that the self does exist. Essence is emptiness that contains everything, and as concsciousness perceives it to be so, potentiality actualizes itself. Looking at it this way, transcending the dichotomy of self/no-self, we transcend duality. I'm not saying we are literally one locus of consciousness, rather, that all consciousness is of one essence. Logic, however, cannot really describe this with accuracy.

[lifegazer]

[Belinda]

Rasputin, reading what you wrote I felt less ignorant, so I hope I understand you. If I express it in my own words, will you cast your eye over what I write?

Essence : I had been thinking of essence as one defining quality that made a thing what it was, something like Aristotelian form. But when you say that God is essence (you did say that, didn't you?) I get the picture that God is existence itself, and that nothing else is existence itself, therefore God is the only essence, and that if God is emptiness that contains everything, then God is not substance but essence only.

And that substance , to be substance, needs to be a subject experiencing an object. So since substance is not substance unless it is subject experiencing object, all substantial things are transient, unlike essence. I hope I have got this right, because it feels like a breakthrough.
_________________
Socialist

[Meleagar]

[Scott]

"Good," "evil" and other moral terms can have many different meanings. Some people may mean something physical, scientific and/or secular by it. Another person may mean something religious by it.

I'm not sure how monism necessarily entails the non-existence of moral value anymore than dualism. As I understand it, most people who believe in morality or supernatural opposing forces (e.g. demons and angels) do not think one of these is one form of reality and the other is another (e.g. they wouldn't think the force of 'good' is physical and the force of 'evil' is supernatural; one would not think 'goodness' refers to the opinion of a supernatural god but that 'badness' is the opinion of a physical human being). Philosophical monism asserts that everything is one time of reality (e.g. physicalism holds that only the physical is real while idealism holds that only the mind is real), but any given moral code whether held by a dualist or not seems to refer only to one type of reality.

Also, I think it is important to remember that there are very different types of philosophical monism. For instance, atheist physicalists are monists, and pantheists are generally considered to be monists also.

Basically, I think this discussion will be ineffective unless specify the type of morality and the type of monism about which we are speaking and agree at least on a rough, explicit definition of them.
_________________
Online Philosophy Club - Please tell me how to improve this website!

[lifegazer]

[Scott]

[lifegazer]

You've given me an idea for a new thread Scott - thanks - I'll take this to metaphysics. But I think that this thread needs some more input from Rasputin, now.

[ape]

Hi Rasputin,


Welcome!


Some encouragement:


There are 2 duals and 2 unities:


The 2 duals are, 1. Love and Hate, and 2. all other words and their opposites, such as good and evil, unity and disunity, which opposites are also composites or unities, which explains how reality is both united and disunited at the same time.


Example: When I love both unity and disunity, I have Unified or Unitary Love for both unity and disunity, which UL means my Love is and I am still unified even when I am disunited and that I am doubly united or unified when in unity.


So the evil or bad unity or duality or dichotomy is Love of any one word combined with Hate of the opposite word, with emphasis on the misuse of Hate for the word evil.


So then that Unconditional Unified Absolute Love makes good out of bad or evil and makes double good or better out of good, and best out of better.


It works that way for all opposites!


Hate for any words works in the reverse: Hate of bad/evil makes good bad/evil, makes bad/evil doubly bad/doubly evil and makes worse worst.


That UL shd help you to see


that Plotinus was right, because that the real evil or dichotomy is not the opposite of good but the Evil of Hate for evil ---


and that when you say that 'There is no good and evil in the manner we usually think of it' and 'universal Love,' you mean more than you know you mean!idea:


It will also help you see that the absolute level of truth is not truth but the Truth about or of Love!



That not only is Buddhism on the mark but also all religions with a Golden Rule!


It will also enable you to not only get back to the Love for good and evil you once had, but also go further and enlarge your Love by loving ALL OTHER OPPOSITES.


And to see how even more true your last sentence is when combined with Unified Love for sadness!

[Nick_A]

Hi Rasputin

Cannot good and evil be relative according to purpose? I live in NY and if I want to go to Canada it is good to go North. Going south is good if I'm going to Florida.

So the question is if the Universe is governed by universal laws of "being" that allow for the complimentary processes of involution and evolution to sustain the universe? If so, for Man with the potential for evolution beyond the mechanical evolution normal for the earth, good would be evolution towards the ultimate good and evil would just be the further involution into creation. It isn't that evil is bad since involution is a necessary process but it just defeats man's potential for evolution.

Only the source is perfect. Creation by definition is imperfect so contains what we call evil by definition. It must be so for Creation to be sustained by the processes of involution and evolution.

We cannot conceive of a Source outside of Creation and the limitations of time and space but we can begin to consciously experience the attraction of the evolution of our consciousness - our being, as well as our attraction into chaos that furthers our involution or as is said "dust to dust."

It provides Man a "choice" which no other form of life on earth has
_________________
Man would like to be an egoist and cannot. This is the most striking characteristic of his wretchedness and the source of his greatness." Simone Weil....Gravity and Grace

[Rasputin]

I'm talking about a form of idealistic monism where morality does not exist in the sense of something that has objective meaning. As stated, I used to be a Neoplatonist, which is a form of monism that is really neither idealistic nor physicalist, yet includes an objective morality since it is part of essence. The problem with the Neoplatonic conception of morality is 1) that the One is supposed to transcend the ability of reason to understand, yet we somehow can form a complete enough logical explanation to posit an opposite principle of evil, and in general, to determine the level of morality of any action by comparison to the purity of the One. 2) The other problem with this is that our notions of morality are based on concepts, and if there is such a thing as morality given objectivity by a divine locus of evaluation, then we certainly can't know so through logical artumenation, else the divine would be lowered to the level of human intellect.

I used to argue against physicalists that life has meaning and that, by extenstion, morality has meaning in virtue of God's objective stance that it is so. There are many physicalists who deny meaning of any kind, including morality exists. There are then some who claim morality exists, though life has no objective meaning. There are then those who claim morality has meaning in virtue of what it means to the individual, to nature, the universe, or something like that. To problem with the first camp is that people have a need for meaning that can only be found through noetic experience. The problem with the second camp is that morality can only exist if life has objective meaning. To both the second and third camp, the problem is that stating something means something to person x, or to entity y, does not mean it objectively has meaning. This is like saying, since x has meaning to me, it must objectively have meaning for everyone. This is a fallacy that locks us into subjectivity. In short, the type of morality I am talking about has to be defined objectively, by something that transcends not only the individual, but also the physical universe itself...something that actually includes morality as it's essence. This is not unlike the Platonic theory of the form of the good, though a similar end is achieved by positing the good as an idea in the mind of God.

Notions of morality are commonly found in dualism. It is true that in most dualistic systems both good and evil stem from supernatural sources. Thus, one could argue that both good and evil come from the spiritual aspect of reality, so if we cut out the physical aspect, leaving us with a form of idealistic monism, then both good and evil continue to exist. The problem with this is that in dualistic systems as mentioned, good and evil are defined in relation to the physical aspect of reality. If there is no reality to the physical plane, if reality is a monad, then there is no standard of comparison for morality to spring from.

The important thing to realize is that, in Buddhism, there are two levels of truth, the relative and absolute. The relative consists of duality, a physical plan and a spiritual plane. It is created by thinking in terms of dichotomies. The absolute level of truth reveals the fallacy of the relative level of truth. Here, the monad is realized and the physical plane is revealed as illusory. Concepts such as moraltiy are made up of not only dichotomies such as good/evil, but also rely on a standard of comparison that itself is composed of dichotomy. This is not to say that what are commonly call reality does not have utility. Most people will always operate from the relative level of truth, so it's better they hold to a concept of morality than have none. However, it is best to transcend the entire dichotomy and just do what benefits all because it benefits all, not because we are locked into dualistic thinking are pitting ourselves against aspects of reality, which is really to pit ourselves against the all.

One could also argue that the very argument I am making is creating a dichotomy between it being true or false. The problem here is that the Buddhist version of idealistic monism, and this may apply to all forms of idealistic monism, does not rely on an argument with a given truth value to arrive at it's conclusion. Buddhism is an empirical path of experience with relies on no outside authority, whether that be an institution, person, attitude, belief system, or thought construct. Buddhism is a path or noetic experience, fostering the bypassing of mere thought constructs to a direct apprehension of the monad. Any statement I can makes about the monad is, by necessity, a mere approximation and should not be taken to speak directly to it's nature. Such would be impossible since I am communicating through the filter of my own logical understanding of what noetic experience I have had, attempting to translate that into words that can communicate my meaning to other people. How close an approximation I am able to make or the incidental truth value of my statements are mere approximations of reality and thought constructs such as truth/falsehood and truth value are also aspects of the relative level of truth. They cannoy apply to the absolute level of truth.

A very similar argument applies to the nature of the self. While the self does exist in the sense there is an individual locus of consciousness, to form an identity based upon this, to drive a dichotomy between the individual and the monad, is to operate from the relative level of truth. As stated, it is no more accurate to say that the individual exists or that he doesn't exist, because according to the absolute level of truth, there is only one essence, of while all individuals are a part. The only way for our theoretical conceptions to have maximized practical value is to transcend dualistic thinking and operate from noetic experience. In this way, we can act from the genuine desire for the wellfare of the all rather than from a constrained definition of what it means to do what is right and wrong. Whether or not this ends up being definds as the true morality is beside the point, as such a statement is another conceptual dichotomy. Attempting to approach this topic from the absolute level of truth, one could only say that it's equally accurate to state that morality doesn't exist than it does exist.

Note: I see the same root problem with the notion of essence containing the potential to do good and evil. If this is so, then what defines an action as good or evil? Where is the standard of comparison? If there is no physical plane, then there is no standard of comparison. Further, potential good/evil is another dichotomy, another thought construct. I understand that as individuals, we have the potential to act in certain ways that are commonly construed as good or evil. The experience of this can be very much like an inner emptiness from whence these actualities emerge. I am not denying this emergence, this is the very principle of dependent arising in Buddhism. My problem is with the objectivity of calling these actualities good or evil. Doing so is just another duality via thought construct that constricts our self-definition away from essence.

I have attempted to address all responses in this reply. If I missed something, feel free to bring that up.

[ape]

[Nick_A]

Hi Rasputin