I still see a logical issue with your notion that some spirits are evil. The problem is that if a spirit is evil, then either 1) it was determined from eternity to be evil, which is predestination, or 2) it was randomly "assigned" to be evil out of pure indeterminacy. And I don't consider either of these alternatives to be compatible with freedom. It seems to me that there is no way out of this conundrum, and that the problem is analytic in nature.
The specter of Indeterminacy in particular produces the need for spirits to have a determinate content of *some* kind, since otherwise there is no possible rationale for whatever they might choose to do or not.
So, I favor the notion that spirit as such is not purely indeterminate freedom but also an intrinsic inclination to draw closer to God—which would suggest that at the most fundamental level, spirits are good and have a built-in telos toward salvation. This option also doesn't allow for ultimate freedom to determine one's own nature. But I would suggest that such freedom can't exist anyway, since it would collapse into purely arbitrary indeterminacy, which would be the abolition of all freedom. (To meaningfully choose your own nature, you would have to do so by appeal to existing criteria, which are already part of your own determinate nature, and so on.)
Can you point to some writing (yours or not yours) that provides an appreciative investigation of dualism? I dont find myself on board with it but I’m also typically usually willing to look further
I can't think of anything off the top of my head, except that it also depends on what specific dualism you mean. there is the so-called Cartesian of mind and body, but also the dualism of Zoroastrianism, Good and Evil. I think in general it is a faulty label more than anything.
I’m more curious about the Zoroastrian dualism. I can’t get myself on board with the idea of an eternal hell, for instance, which a good-evil dualism seems to encourage. I look around in nature and I see nothing that isn’t finally broken down and processed by nature. Even nuclear waste is happily munched on by certain fungi. I love the idea that everything emanates from God, which would seem to suggest that everything has inherent goodness. I’ve seen for myself that an orientation away from the hope that such an idea espouses leads to physical and emotional weakening. Despair is a killer. I know you’re a self-proclaimed “pessimist” and I wonder how you can survive such a negative mindset? It almost killed me many times. Maybe I’m too sensitive. I’m probably assuming way too much from that term and how youve applied it to yourself. One thing is for sure: I am in process and am, for the most part, nearly always curious. Thank God.
I can try to sum up my perspective: I think there are a lot of dualisms, in fact, everything is both a whole and a duality, everything is made of contrast. so Heaven and Earth, Light and Darkness, Life and Death, Good and Bad. Now, these are not all in the same category, they don't correspond or address the same level of existence. The same is true for another irreducible duality: Good and Evil (distinct from Bad). In my view, Evil is that which denies the contrasts, and the need for them. And what I can observe in the world is that there are irreducible natures, selves, who are free to choose Good or Evil. And some do, and perhaps always will. As to how I can survive, I don't think I look at things that way. I am a pessimist only in the sense that I recognize certain realities and I deem them to be bad, or even Evil. But at the same time, even if Evil triumphs forever, its triumph is of less worth than the noble failure of Good.
I normally get really agitated around discussion of normative dualities. They just feel so surface-level. But yes all the way to “everything is both a whole and a duality.” This resonates, especially with what we’re learning about the holographic, microcosmic reality of nature. It’s also a “yes, and” or “both, and” which I always love. Inclusion. Nature, after all, rejects nothing. Reminds me of David Bohm’s theory of everything: “all your precious theories? They’re all correct! But only for a moment. And then they’re not.”
This “wholeness and duality” duality seems to point to the fact that just because things *appear* separate doesn’t mean they actually are. And, similarly to Bohm’s point, just because we can’t SEE flux in its fullness, doesn’t mean everything isn’t in a constant state of it. So we’re left with: duality of perception and reality.
Just because something appears separate from me doesn’t mean it is. So evil’s root then is BOTH the denial of contrasts, AND the denial of our interconnectedness, ie conscious separating from God. How does that resonate?
I believe that. but I also believe in irreducible plurality, meaning that at bottom there are selves, and laws, and matter, and that it is not a given that they should intermingle. I think, in fact, that such communion is the work of God, and of the gods, and of all persons.
The “i don’t know what I’m doing but I know what I’m not doing is doing me” reminds me of the words attributed to Jesus in Thomas’ Gospel: “if you bring forth what is within you, what you bring forth will save you. If you do not bring forth what is within you, what you do not bring forth will destroy you.”
Fun stuff, and now I'm all caught up.
I still see a logical issue with your notion that some spirits are evil. The problem is that if a spirit is evil, then either 1) it was determined from eternity to be evil, which is predestination, or 2) it was randomly "assigned" to be evil out of pure indeterminacy. And I don't consider either of these alternatives to be compatible with freedom. It seems to me that there is no way out of this conundrum, and that the problem is analytic in nature.
The specter of Indeterminacy in particular produces the need for spirits to have a determinate content of *some* kind, since otherwise there is no possible rationale for whatever they might choose to do or not.
So, I favor the notion that spirit as such is not purely indeterminate freedom but also an intrinsic inclination to draw closer to God—which would suggest that at the most fundamental level, spirits are good and have a built-in telos toward salvation. This option also doesn't allow for ultimate freedom to determine one's own nature. But I would suggest that such freedom can't exist anyway, since it would collapse into purely arbitrary indeterminacy, which would be the abolition of all freedom. (To meaningfully choose your own nature, you would have to do so by appeal to existing criteria, which are already part of your own determinate nature, and so on.)
Can you point to some writing (yours or not yours) that provides an appreciative investigation of dualism? I dont find myself on board with it but I’m also typically usually willing to look further
I can't think of anything off the top of my head, except that it also depends on what specific dualism you mean. there is the so-called Cartesian of mind and body, but also the dualism of Zoroastrianism, Good and Evil. I think in general it is a faulty label more than anything.
Very much agreed re: the faulty label.
I’m more curious about the Zoroastrian dualism. I can’t get myself on board with the idea of an eternal hell, for instance, which a good-evil dualism seems to encourage. I look around in nature and I see nothing that isn’t finally broken down and processed by nature. Even nuclear waste is happily munched on by certain fungi. I love the idea that everything emanates from God, which would seem to suggest that everything has inherent goodness. I’ve seen for myself that an orientation away from the hope that such an idea espouses leads to physical and emotional weakening. Despair is a killer. I know you’re a self-proclaimed “pessimist” and I wonder how you can survive such a negative mindset? It almost killed me many times. Maybe I’m too sensitive. I’m probably assuming way too much from that term and how youve applied it to yourself. One thing is for sure: I am in process and am, for the most part, nearly always curious. Thank God.
I can try to sum up my perspective: I think there are a lot of dualisms, in fact, everything is both a whole and a duality, everything is made of contrast. so Heaven and Earth, Light and Darkness, Life and Death, Good and Bad. Now, these are not all in the same category, they don't correspond or address the same level of existence. The same is true for another irreducible duality: Good and Evil (distinct from Bad). In my view, Evil is that which denies the contrasts, and the need for them. And what I can observe in the world is that there are irreducible natures, selves, who are free to choose Good or Evil. And some do, and perhaps always will. As to how I can survive, I don't think I look at things that way. I am a pessimist only in the sense that I recognize certain realities and I deem them to be bad, or even Evil. But at the same time, even if Evil triumphs forever, its triumph is of less worth than the noble failure of Good.
I normally get really agitated around discussion of normative dualities. They just feel so surface-level. But yes all the way to “everything is both a whole and a duality.” This resonates, especially with what we’re learning about the holographic, microcosmic reality of nature. It’s also a “yes, and” or “both, and” which I always love. Inclusion. Nature, after all, rejects nothing. Reminds me of David Bohm’s theory of everything: “all your precious theories? They’re all correct! But only for a moment. And then they’re not.”
This “wholeness and duality” duality seems to point to the fact that just because things *appear* separate doesn’t mean they actually are. And, similarly to Bohm’s point, just because we can’t SEE flux in its fullness, doesn’t mean everything isn’t in a constant state of it. So we’re left with: duality of perception and reality.
Just because something appears separate from me doesn’t mean it is. So evil’s root then is BOTH the denial of contrasts, AND the denial of our interconnectedness, ie conscious separating from God. How does that resonate?
I should clarify -- we’re left with: duality of perception and some fundamental “reality” of pure interconnectedness. Does that make sense?
I believe that. but I also believe in irreducible plurality, meaning that at bottom there are selves, and laws, and matter, and that it is not a given that they should intermingle. I think, in fact, that such communion is the work of God, and of the gods, and of all persons.
The “i don’t know what I’m doing but I know what I’m not doing is doing me” reminds me of the words attributed to Jesus in Thomas’ Gospel: “if you bring forth what is within you, what you bring forth will save you. If you do not bring forth what is within you, what you do not bring forth will destroy you.”
it wasn't consciously paralleled, but it is what I was trying to say.