Re: Attributive Monism

[Willamena]

As many religions and people believe, who you believe you are is just an illusion. There is not an "individual" at all, though we view ourselves as unique in this place. The same holds true of your "soul" or "spirit". It is not unique, but part of a greater whole. The same is true of the Gods or even of the supreme God (the ONE God).

I don't understand. If we view ourselves as unique, how can we not be individuals? It would seem to be inherent to the definition of 'individual'.

The easiest way I have found to explain it to those who have never heard of Monism is with math. What is anything plus 0? What it was. What is anything minus 0? Still what it was. Jump a few years of math education: What is anything times 0? ZERO. What is anything divided by 0? INFINITY.

There is no need to go further into mathematics. Monism is to ultimately believe in that which is ONE, though perhaps nothing..... where all is just a part of a whole and not an individual at all. It is to worship and pay homage to the being/nonbeing rather than to worship and pay homage to the being/deity.

Yes, there is a need to go further. Please.

This makes no sense. If we are zero, we do not exist. 'Nothing' is lacking existence.

 

[Comet]

I don't understand. If we view ourselves as unique, how can we not be individuals? It would seem to be inherent to the definition of 'individual'

For example, there are many living things that make up the human body. They are individual forms, but are not separate from ourselves. They make up a greater whole/system of things. We view them as individual organisms, but they merely make a greater whole.

Yes, there is a need to go further. Please.

This makes no sense. If we are zero, we do not exist. 'Nothing' is lacking existence.

It really depends on how you look at it. For example, Hindus worship the being/non-being. Does it make it invalid to worship a "nonbeing"? If zero and nothing were truly just that, they would not exist. They are something, even if it is nothing. I ultimately believe that all will return to that which it was. As many believe we all return to God. To me GOD is not a being, but a being nonbeing. When all has returned there; it is an allness, oneness, and nothingness.

Easiest example I can think of:
Think of it as viewing God as what was before the Big Bang. All was created from that. There was nothing but what it was before then. A oneness from which all things came, a nothingness. Does that make any better sence to you?

(Its okay, most people never grasp the concept. Most don't ever ask either- thanks)

 

[Willamena]

For example, there are many living things that make up the human body. They are individual forms, but are not separate from ourselves. They make up a greater whole/system of things. We view them as individual organisms, but they merely make a greater whole.

Okay; perhaps I still don't get it, but what I'm hearing is that it's not so much a loss of the identity of the individual, per se, as it is a philosophy that embraces wholeness and identifying with the larger entity. For instance, if any of those organs in the body could think independently, they would identify with the whole, me; my identifying with any of them is irrelevant, but I have larger things that I identify with --the family, the culture, the country, the world, the physical universe, etc. And the individual spirit identifies itself with god, the whole of spirit.

Is that right? If so, it's something I do agree with and participate in, though some of the wording of the description of Monism leaves me wondering if it truly describes my beliefs.

It really depends on how you look at it. For example, Hindus worship the being/non-being. Does it make it invalid to worship a "nonbeing"? If zero and nothing were truly just that, they would not exist. They are something, even if it is nothing. I ultimately believe that all will return to that which it was. As many believe we all return to God. To me GOD is not a being, but a being nonbeing. When all has returned there; it is an allness, oneness, and nothingness.

Easiest example I can think of:
Think of it as viewing God as what was before the Big Bang. All was created from that. There was nothing but what it was before then. A oneness from which all things came, a nothingness. Does that make any better sence to you?

(Its okay, most people never grasp the concept. Most don't ever ask either- thanks)

I'm not puzzled about the validity of worship, so much as what is worshipped. So... is god the zero, or us? You talk about us merging into the larger being, the whole, and yet make as example adding zero into something.

Is all this talk of nothingness related to solipsism?

Bear with me, please, as I try to puzzle this out. It sounds like with "non-being/nothing that is actually something" you are addressing the immaterial spirit (though I would hestiate to call it non-being, as it is the essence of being)... and the spirit as part of the greater whole of spirit is zero added to zero, or infinity added to infinity: a redundancy (which to me equates to 'the obvious').

The way I see it, it is illogical to worship non-being or nothingness, because there is nothing there to worship. The spirit is necessarily something or it does not exist. It is the essence of being. I'm not familiar with Hinduism, sorry.

This says nothing about the physical being, though, and that is where the individual is consciously 'constructed' as part of our self identity. The individuality, then, is not "lost" by the spirit identifying with the greater whole, any more than it is lost by identifying with the family, the culture, the country, the world, or the physical universe.

Does any of this agree with what you said?

The Big Bang example just went over my head, sorry.

 

[michel]

Bear with me, please, as I try to puzzle this out.

quote]

Explain it to me when you have, please, will you ?:cover:

 

[Valjean]

Those who believe in a single Universal Consciousness don't generally worship it the way a dualist worships a God. They may, though, worship, revere or focus on deified aspects of this Consciousness as mental exercises to assist spiritual growth and eventual merger with this Reality.

 

[mr.guy]

I'm not puzzled about the validity of worship, so much as what is worshipped. So... is god the zero, or us? You talk about us merging into the larger being, the whole, and yet make as example adding zero into something.

I believe he means zero as the difference of reality. Isolation of aspectative quality is futility.

Bear with me, please, as I try to puzzle this out. It sounds like with "non-being/nothing that is actually something" you are addressing the immaterial spirit (though I would hestiate to call it non-being, as it is the essence of being)... and the spirit as part of the greater whole of spirit is zero added to zero, or infinity added to infinity: a redundancy (which to me equates to 'the obvious').

Your addition wasn't necessary; the monist didn't divy up the zero to begin with. Presumeably, you were not to add nothing to nothing for we are just talking about one encapsulating nothing.

This says nothing about the physical being, though, and that is where the individual is consciously 'constructed' as part of our self identity. The individuality, then, is not "lost" by the spirit identifying with the greater whole, any more than it is lost by identifying with the family, the culture, the country, the world, or the physical universe.

In this instance, individuality was illusional, the idea being that unconsciousness envelopes the multitudes of perceptions.

 

[Willamena]

Those who believe in a single Universal Consciousness don't generally worship it the way a dualist worships a God.

Just so, from what I've seen. I don't think I've ever 'worshipped' god, per se, so much as I have acknowledged it, felt something of it, and been grateful for it.

They may, though, worship, revere or focus on deified aspects of this Consciousness as mental exercises to assist spiritual growth and eventual merger with this Reality.

It's the "merger" part I don't understand --how can one merge with something one is already a part of?

 

[Willamena]

I believe he means zero as the difference of reality. Isolation of aspectative quality is futility.

*zing* Huh? Difference of reality between what and what?

Your addition wasn't necessary; the monist didn't divy up the zero to begin with. Presumeably, you were not to add nothing to nothing for we are just talking about one encapsulating nothing.

Hence, the redundancy.

Perhaps Monism is not appropriate to describe my beliefs, then, as the concept of "one encapsulating nothing" makes no sense. To me, it must be "one encapsulating something" or nothing. *grin*

In this instance, individuality was illusional, the idea being that unconsciousness envelopes the multitudes of perceptions.

It may be illusionary, but it exists, and as such should not be ignored as part of a philosophy or description of reality.

I guess I just don't understand Monism.

 

[BucephalusBB]

What is anything divided by 0? INFINITY.

Argh!!!
I am sorry, I wanted to stop myself from being totally offtopic, but this isn't right. It is impossible to divide something by 0..

 

[BrandonE]

I'm far from an expert on the subject, especially as the explicit concept is relatively new to me as well (though it matches my intuitive assessment). However, a book that I found to be useful in attempting to understand the concept was "The Book" by Alan Watts. It's certainly not authoritatively the best book on the subject, nor the oldest. It does attempt to explain some aspects of monism to westerners, to whom the idea is largely foreign. I thought it was useful. It is also short and easy to read, though a little mindbending at times.

Can anone else more familiar with the concept recommend further reading that you found useful?

 

[mr.guy]

Hence, the redundancy.

Not redundant, just fruitless.

Perhaps Monism is not appropriate to describe my beliefs, then, as the concept of "one encapsulating nothing" makes no sense. To me, it must be "one encapsulating something" or nothing.

In a total field, something may be inappropriate; isolating or acknowledging something to the exception of everything may be entirely meaningless so far as a boggling universal scale is concerned. The best we could hope for is a soupish consistency.

It may be illusionary, but it exists, and as such should not be ignored as part of a philosophy or description of reality.

It's not ignored, but it's just a split hair where no division is real. Any arbitrary ascription made is done to the complete unconscious, or inevitable crunch, which is to say, of no real distinction in the grand scheme of things.

 

[Willamena]

Not redundant, just fruitless.

In a total field, something may be inappropriate; isolating or acknowledging something to the exception of everything may be entirely meaningless so far as a boggling universal scale is concerned. The best we could hope for is a soupish consistency.

"Fruitless" implies it is not worth the bother, which still acknowledges that the zero, the thing, exists. Which means it is "divvied". This is making less sense.

Meaningless to whom? The individual?

The very means we assign meaning is by identifying unique things and their relationship to each other and to ourselves. (In Hebrew mythology, that was the first task that God assigned to Adam.) Meaning is for our benefit. There is nothing that *exists* that can't be meaningful, even something mind-boggling.

It's not ignored, but it's just a split hair where no division is real. Any arbitrary ascription made is done to the complete unconscious, or inevitable crunch, which is to say, of no real distinction in the grand scheme of things.

Again, a "split hair" implies that it is something not significant enough to be bothered with. If we then choose not to bother with it, that's ignoring. Do you see my problem, here?

The "arbitrary ascription" is made by us, and to dismiss it as unreal is not sufficient to describe reality as a whole.

 

[mr.guy]

"Fruitless" implies it is not worth the bother, which still acknowledges that the zero, the thing, exists. Which means it is "divvied". This is making less sense.

What exists is not at odds here; the excercise of adding the representative zero to another is nonsensical within a monist framework; if everything is within this zero, where'd you get another one?

Meaningless to whom? The individual?

Beats me.

The very means we assign meaning is by identifying unique things and their relationship to each other and to ourselves.

Uniqueness is a perceptual faculty, not inherent, nor essential.

Meaning is for our benefit. There is nothing that *exists* that can't be meaningful, even something mind-boggling.

Benefit is irrelevant. However, i take no exception to how, why and where meaning is ascribed; just that it in no way properly addresses reality.

Again, a "split hair" implies that it is something not significant enough to be bothered with. If we then choose not to bother with it, that's ignoring. Do you see my problem, here?

Significance is difficult to recognize; what distinguishes itself in an undistinguishable universe is beyond me.

The "arbitrary ascription" is made by us, and to dismiss it as unreal is not sufficient to describe reality as a whole.

I've not said precepts are unreal, i've said they may not be able to describe real differences.

 

[Valjean]

Just so, from what I've seen. I don't think I've ever 'worshipped' god, per se, so much as I have acknowledged it, felt something of it, and been grateful for it.


It's the "merger" part I don't understand --how can one merge with something one is already a part of?

My choice of words was confusing. Sorry.
It is the consciousness of unity that one strives for. The idea is that we are, in a way, asleep, and dreaming this world and our individuality. Buddhists and Hindus seek to wake up to an undifferentiated, Universal Consciousness.

 

[Willamena]

What exists is not at odds here; the excercise of adding the representative zero to another is nonsensical within a monist framework; if everything is within this zero, where'd you get another one?

Uniqueness is a perceptual faculty, not inherent, nor essential.

And this "perceptual faculty" is to be ignored? What I'm hearing is that something that exists as a part of reality but is deemed nonessential is, in fact, to be dimissed as not worth the bother.

I certainly hope this doesn't actually describe Monism.

Benefit is irrelevant. However, i take no exception to how, why and where meaning is ascribed; just that it in no way properly addresses reality.

Significance is difficult to recognize; what distinguishes itself in an undistinguishable universe is beyond me.

I've not said precepts are unreal, i've said they may not be able to describe real differences.

Nothing distinguishes itself in the universe you describe. Nothing can exist, and nothing can distinguish itself. That is blatently contrary to the reality that we live in.

 

[Willamena]

My choice of words was confusing. Sorry.
It is the consciousness of unity that one strives for. The idea is that we are, in a way, asleep, and dreaming this world and our individuality. Buddhists and Hindus seek to wake up to an undifferentiated, Universal Consciousness.

Interesting. Then they would no longer be of body; so is the hope for this unity that it happen after death?

 

[Valjean]

Interesting. Then they would no longer be of body; so is the hope for this unity that it happen after death?

No. Enlightenment may occurr at any time, though the individual consciousness may have to cycle through multiple lives before waking to a Cosmic Consciousness.

 

[Comet]

Okay; perhaps I still don't get it, but what I'm hearing is that it's not so much a loss of the identity of the individual, per se, as it is a philosophy that embraces wholeness and identifying with the larger entity. For instance, if any of those organs in the body could think independently, they would identify with the whole, me; my identifying with any of them is irrelevant, but I have larger things that I identify with --the family, the culture, the country, the world, the physical universe, etc. And the individual spirit identifies itself with god, the whole of spirit.

Yes and no. It depends on the context to which one takes Monism. For example, seyorni and I view it a bit differently. I don't quite fall into line with Hinuism or Buddhism. To me speaking of "entity" without "non-entity" is meaningless. I don't per se believe in God in the sence that you seem to. To me an entity God falls into line with the same concept as humans, etc....

I'm not puzzled about the validity of worship, so much as what is worshipped. So... is god the zero, or us? You talk about us merging into the larger being, the whole, and yet make as example adding zero into something.

It depends on the Monist. Hindus worship Gods and Buddhists do not per se. Then again, I can't speak for them as I am not one.

The concept of zero I brought up is just an abstract way of thought to help view things. I believe it was mr. guy who said something like: all is within the zero. Nothing exists outside of ITSELF.

Is all this talk of nothingness related to solipsism?

Not in many sences. Many things exist in nonexistence and many things don't exist in existence.

Bear with me, please, as I try to puzzle this out. It sounds like with "non-being/nothing that is actually something" you are addressing the immaterial spirit (though I would hestiate to call it non-being, as it is the essence of being)... and the spirit as part of the greater whole of spirit is zero added to zero, or infinity added to infinity: a redundancy (which to me equates to 'the obvious').

You miss the point of my beliefs then. Do you understand Dualism? If so, or not:

Good and evil. Two forces in opposition to each other. (Could you have one without the other is really an irrelavent question) I view both as the same.... they came from the same place. They are only different by the splitting of the allness/oneness/nothingness.

You merely take it from the "spirit". As for the joining of a universal conciousness, that is not exactly what I believe. Thus I differ from the Hindu and Buddhist a bit in the end of all things.

The way I see it, it is illogical to worship non-being or nothingness, because there is nothing there to worship. The spirit is necessarily something or it does not exist. It is the essence of being. I'm not familiar with Hinduism, sorry.

It is no more strange than a theist worshiping a deity by the eyes of an atheist, I would suppose.

If spirit is the essence of being, what is the essence of non-being?

This says nothing about the physical being, though, and that is where the individual is consciously 'constructed' as part of our self identity. The individuality, then, is not "lost" by the spirit identifying with the greater whole, any more than it is lost by identifying with the family, the culture, the country, the world, or the physical universe.

Does any of this agree with what you said?

If there is nothing or only one, how is there any individual? Nothing would be distinguished from anything else..... it is all, one, and nothing.

I'm sure I've just confused you more.

The Big Bang example just went over my head, sorry.

How did the universe get here? (I'll try to explain in terms and ways that make sence to you)

 

[mr.guy]

And this "perceptual faculty" is to be ignored? What I'm hearing is that something that exists as a part of reality but is deemed nonessential is, in fact, to be dimissed as not worth the bother.

Essential as in "essense of".

What is "ignored" is a methodology of your making, not mine; what is "important" in reality is wholly arbitrary, thus difficult to truly evaluate as such because of a limited, deductive faculty. What hierarchy reality organizes is here presumed to be egalitarian, and to quantify the universe in no way closes any systems.

Nothing distinguishes itself in the universe you describe. Nothing can exist, and nothing can distinguish itself. That is blatently contrary to the reality that we live in.

Why is distiguishment necessary for existence?

 

[Willamena]

The concept of zero I brought up is just an abstract way of thought to help view things. I believe it was mr. guy who said something like: all is within the zero. Nothing exists outside of ITSELF.


Not in many sences. Many things exist in nonexistence and many things don't exist in existence.

That makes no sense.

You miss the point of my beliefs then. Do you understand Dualism? If so, or not:

Good and evil. Two forces in opposition to each other. (Could you have one without the other is really an irrelavent question) I view both as the same.... they came from the same place. They are only different by the splitting of the allness/oneness/nothingness.

You merely take it from the "spirit". As for the joining of a universal conciousness, that is not exactly what I believe. Thus I differ from the Hindu and Buddhist a bit in the end of all things.

I understand little of dualism. From what I have read, it seems to consider the immateial to be substance, material, which also makes no sense to me.

It is no more strange than a theist worshiping a deity by the eyes of an atheist, I would suppose.

If spirit is the essence of being, what is the essence of non-being?

It is nothing; non-being does not have essence.

If there is nothing or only one, how is there any individual? Nothing would be distinguished from anything else..... it is all, one, and nothing.

I'm sure I've just confused you more.

There isn't only one; it is that fact that gives us individuality. We are not alone in existence. That which is "me" (spirit, self) exists only in contrast to everything "not-me". My physical body is "not-me", not spirit; my mind is "not-me"; but these things are what my conscious self-identity is constructed from in the context of my physical existence. In the same way, I have an identity constructed as a part of the other greater wholes (groupings) mentioned above. As long as the physical "not-me" world exists, and I am conscious in it (have a body/mind), I (spirit, self) have individuality, a unique perspective on the world.

At least, that's how I see it, and it is no doubt why I have trouble grasping this.

How did the universe get here? (I'll try to explain in terms and ways that make sence to you)

It doesn't matter. I don't have a working theory for that. I am, and that suffices.

From what I've heard of the Big Bang, it could have come from the collapse of a preceding universe.