Jobar: The Monist Problem of Evil

[luvluv]

As a monist, you would deny the distinction between good and evil, would you not?

So are you comfortable with denying that there is evil in the world?

Would you say, for instance, that religion is evil? Or even CAN BE evil? It seems as a monist you would have to deny that, since all is One.

[Jobar]

luvluv, I don't deny the distinction between good and evil any more than I deny the distinction between light and dark, or between matter and energy. They are the extremes of continua, like north and south.

From where I stand, Western religion is (by and large) evil. The evil which wears a mask of good, in fact. But you need not tell me that others stand in places that make it look entirely different, to them.

If you start talking about ultimate points of view- as seen from the eyes of Brahma, let's say- then all things are equal, and no distinctions can be made. Existence is a single undifferentiated continuum. No, that's not precisely right; because though trying to describe a single undifferentiated continuum stops the tongue, the fact is that existence/nonexistence are opposite ends of a spectrum, too. And that, my theist friend, stops not just words, but thought. I urge you to explore off in that direction yourself; that way nirvana lies. ;)

[premjan]

isn't theism more life-affirming than atheism? Belief in a (humanlike parent) creator makes it easier to believe in oneself (for one whose self-belief may be lacking). It makes the universe less forbidding. Monism in contrast is life-denying since it asserts an impersonal God (if I understand it right) that is more of a disembodied substance or intelligence than a creature like us, but more powerful.

Unless of course you hate your father, in which case it would not work out. But there's no reason to hate your father in general.

[Jobar]

Originally posted by premjan
isn't theism more life-affirming than atheism? Belief in a (humanlike parent) creator makes it easier to believe in oneself (for one whose self-belief may be lacking). It makes the universe less forbidding.

I wouldn't say so. Especially if we are talking about the Abrahamic religions- where God is a cruel, merciless, lying bastard, prone to punish for the slightest unknowing infraction of his laws, savage and unjust. Do you realize that nowhere in the Bible does God ever laugh? Having a father like that in the real world makes for an incredibly awful and twisted life- how can you call that 'life-affirming'?

Monism in contrast is life-denying since it asserts an impersonal God (if I understand it right) that is more of a disembodied substance or intelligence than a creature like us, but more powerful.

I'd say that using the word 'god' is inaccurate; there is no personality, no intelligence, not even power required. Monism is the philosophical view that all the universe, all reality, is unitary, or (more accurately) non-dual. Some sects of Hinduism view Brahma as in some way a separate person, but this is only a simplistic interpretation which all can understand, even children. It is, in fact, a fairy tale, a just-so story to guide the young and the ignorant. If one pursues the study of ultimates, the teachings make clear that the truth is subtle beyond human understanding- as I said above, it stops thought. Words, extremely useful though they are in our normal world, become an impediment when we try to understand *everything*. "The Way which can be described is not the true Way."

When I talk about things like this, I strive to go to the point where words lose meaning, then stop. I often lose many of my listeners- each individual approaches wordless understanding at their own rate and in their own way. One of the reasons I love this forum so is that many have the wisdom to follow, and many others want to learn to follow.

And of course, many here already know what my words can only partially map out. Maybe eventually someone will come along and pose a koan which will finally get me to shut up. ;)

[premjan]

is nothing more than a category tree arrived at by analyzing all things by their attributes.

This has nothing to do with God in any way so it cannot be called real theism.

In contrast belief in a creator is theism. If the creator is not such a terrible guy but more of a helper, then I can see how it would be more affirming than monism. There is a reason for the old adage that philosophy lacks passion.

Maybe it is just the Judeo-Christian God who seems rather terrible.

[theophilus]

Originally posted by Jobar
Existence is a single undifferentiated continuum. No, that's not precisely right; because though trying to describe a single undifferentiated continuum stops the tongue, the fact is that existence/nonexistence are opposite ends of a spectrum, too. And that, my theist friend, stops not just words, but thought. I urge you to explore off in that direction yourself; that way nirvana lies. ;)

I don't mean to distort your post be leaving out the earlier part, but this statement raises an interesting question: If you believe what you say above, why do you, how can you argue about "things?"

I believe this is the crux of the "one and many," problem. As soon as someone asserts monism, he has created a second entity, i.e., the "idea" of monism. The only way to maintain monism, therefore, would seem to be to cease speaking and cesae thinking.

[theophilus]

Originally posted by Jobar
And of course, many here already know what my words can only partially map out. Maybe eventually someone will come along and pose a koan which will finally get me to shut up. ;)

What is the sound of silence?

[premjan]

could just be an assimilation algorithm.

[CJD]

Not that I am getting too far into this one but . . .

Jobar wrtoe:
Do you realize that nowhere in the Bible does God ever laugh?

First, Xians have not historically posited that the Scriptures exhaustively reveal God.

Secondly, "He who sits in the heavens laughs; the Lord holds them in derision" (Ps. 2:4); and "The wicked plots against the righteous and gnashes his teeth at him, but the Lord laughs at the wicked, for he sees that his day is coming" (Ps. 37:12–13). ;)

Regards,

CJD

[theophilus]

I was hoping for something more fruitful from this discussion. I'm sorry to see it dropped.

[Jobar]

Not dropped, theophilus. Like everyone else, sometimes my concrete life takes up my time so fully that my virtual life must wait a while.

You said The only way to maintain monism, therefore, would seem to be to cease speaking and cease thinking.

No, one may continue speaking and thinking, as long as they realize that the speech and the thought are not the actual reality which words and thoughts attempt to model. At the ultimate level- nirvana- all models break down. But we don't live our lives on that level- far from it.

However, the occasional pilgrimmage to that wordless and thoughtless peak gives you- well- perspective. It helps you keep your life in balance.

When talking, just talk. When walking, just walk. When sitting, just sit. Above all- don't wobble.

As to the 'sound of silence'- in Hindu mythology of course, the universe always makes the sound OM. (Weren't the crystal spheres of Aristotle supposed to make beautiful ringing sounds as they spun?) But, really, I think of the ultimate 'sound' as the white-noise hiss of the 3K cosmic background radiation.
-------------------------------------------------

premjan- what do you mean, "assimilation algorithm"?
--------------------------------------------------

CJD- would you say that counts as happy laughter, or more sneering and gloating? But your point is correct; from now on if I use that, I'll be sure to specify 'happy laughter'.

[gcameron]

I read on CNN.com recently that, according to astronomers, one distant galaxy radiates an extremely low "B flat," something like 70 octaves below middle C...

[theophilus]

Originally posted by Jobar
Not dropped, theophilus. Like everyone else, sometimes my concrete life takes up my time so fully that my virtual life must wait a while.

You said The only way to maintain monism, therefore, would seem to be to cease speaking and cease thinking.

No, one may continue speaking and thinking, as long as they realize that the speech and the thought are not the actual reality which words and thoughts attempt to model. At the ultimate level- nirvana- all models break down. But we don't live our lives on that level- far from it.



Not to be argumentative (well, actually..) if the essence (?) of nirvana is "nothingness," how can you describe it?

You didn't respond to my question about creating a plurality (thus destroying unity) by having an "idea" of the one which is not the one.

[theophilus]

Originally posted by gcameron
I read on CNN.com recently that, according to astronomers, one distant galaxy radiates an extremely low "B flat," something like 70 octaves below middle C...

Except from Jobars perspective, that is not real.

Jobar: Is the illusion of plurality a "real" thing or is it just an illusion itself?

[Jobar]

Not to be argumentative (well, actually..) if the essence (?) of nirvana is "nothingness," how can you describe it?

You can't accurately describe it. Hell, you can't even think about it. In fact, I know that my own attempts to do so are inaccurate, incomplete, even perhaps misleading to some. That's a classic problem, by the way- Zen masters often bewailed that their students looked at the pointing finger, and not at the beautiful moon being pointed at. And the legend is that Lao Tzu, author of the Tao Te Ching, was forced by a soldier to write down his wisdom- and the first lines are "The Tao which can be spoken of is not the Ultimate Tao; the names which can be named are not absolute names."

Quoting a noted authority on pantheism- that is, myself: ;)

"Pantheism, even if one ignores the difficulties caused by the alternate meaning of 'theos' contained in it, is near-impossible to talk about accurately. Pantheism is a belief in the ultimate union of opposites- and language, indeed any form of human communication down to Morse code or binary arithmetic, absolutely depends upon dualism. How can we talk meaningfully about a system wherein dots equal dashes, figures equal backgrounds, and bits equal spaces? At the deepest level it simply stops the tongue, and can't be communicated! Unity is inexpressible. We need duality or plurality to think or act or speak- yet the universe looks more and more non-dualistic the more deeply we investigate. Any divisions we make, if we look at them closely enough, prove to be only apparent, and not essential. (E=mc^2, remember.)"

Mmm, let's try this. You can measure matter in units of energy, because of the equivalence between the two, OK? Yet just because you can measure the mass of your keyboard in however-many billions of electron volts, does not mean that your keyboard will suddenly explode with unimaginable violence just because you measure it as energy.

Hinduism and Buddhism consider the world of samsara- perceived reality- to be illusion, mis-perceptions of our limited and temporary senses. I prefer to think of samsara, not as illusion, but as the sort of slightly-out-of-focus gaze which is required to see the figure in a stereoptigram. If we always perceived nirvana, that would be like looking directly at it, and only seeing an undifferentiated collection of black and white (or colored) spots.

Here's another example of how pantheism/monism is not something which can be properly understood. It's seemingly incorrect to think of the universe as one; it's seemingly incorrect to think of the universe as many.

See how slippery it is? It's the ultimate koan. We try to encompass it, but we can't- because the fact is, it encompasses us. Our ideas cannot contain reality, because reality contains our ideas.