The farce of pantheism, the deceit of duality

I had a conversation with a friend of mine concerning duality in which we created a few allegories to describe the true nature of harmony which you might find interesting.

It is my belief harmony or "the good" can exist in and of itself without disharmony or "the bad". Transversely, discord requires harmony to be discord in that it is a perversion of tonal unity, which is negative. By its very definition disharmony requires something better than itself to be. One could consider disharmony as having a parasitic lower existence to harmony's pure existence.

This is a very cognitive explanation. A more grounded metaphor could be as follows.
A tree at its roots has a mushroom growing out of it. Their relationship is sembiotic, they exchange minerals and nutrients in a way that is mutually beneficial to each other. They are existing together in harmony. It is a pure sustainable relationship. The mushroom COULD grow alone and be fine, so could the tree, but instead they are together in harmony like two musical notes.

Along comes a parasitic bacteria that infects both the mushroom and the tree. The tree and mushroom don't need this bacteria at all, but, the bacteria NEEDS the host to exist. It causes both the tree and mushroom to die, spreading itself to the next victim tree in the meantime. This bacteria is like discord, it needs something other than itself to exist, and simply by existing as a parasite it creates decay and premature death.

I do not think good needs evil, or that we need evil, I think rather that evil itself needs good to exist. For example; People die from old age naturally, murder needs a victim. Community can exist between nations, war needs an enemy. Happyness can exist in and of itself, hate needs a target. We could do with out all these discords and the object of their decay would still be fine without them.

This leads me to think pantheism is a farce. Existance makes necessary itself in being, which is good for it is in and of itself good to be. Only later does evil have the potential to parasite off this inherent goodness called being, which means evilness is inherently unnecessary.

I believe my higher self chose to participate with these forces in a way my current conscious cannot currently fathom, and that myself and these forces are coauthors of my existence. The goal in all of this is to work towards harmony, the only necessary component of happiness, while working to heal and prevent disharmony, the main component of fear and hate which is at its core uneccesary.

As above so below is the mantra of parasitic evil. Of course that which parasites from others would have those others believe its parasitic existence is necessary. This is simply not the case. People are people, king parasites need slave hosts. People are people, rich parasites need poor hosts. People are people, government parasites need civilian hosts. People are people, cult parasites need follower hosts.

Our entire society is backwards and anchored there on this one simple deception. The truth is harmony is the only thing we need, discord is an uncecessary parasite.

reply to post by Mykah


But perhaps without the parasite we wouldn't realize how beautiful the symbiotic Tree/Mushroom-relationship is? Can beauty exist in itself just like happiness? Isn't beauty just a form of happiness?

reply to post by Mykah

I do not think good needs evil, or that we need evil, I think rather that evil itself needs good to exist. For example; People die from old age naturally, murder needs a victim. Community can exist between nations, war needs an enemy. Happyness can exist in and of itself, hate needs a target. We could do with out all these discords and the object of their decay would still be fine without them.

There is no such thing as evil or good. It just cycle of nature. This "good" Mushroom/Tree would be nothing without denitrifying bacteria and other decomposing bacteria to give it nutrients. This Mushroom/Tree eats dead animals, but only with the help of the bacterias.

If there is a plus, there HAVE to be a minus. If you make a neutron excited, there should be a way to lose its excited-ness and become negative.

We need the negative for comparison. But the negative is not bad, it just has to exist if the other exist.

Lots of old religions have Pantheistic theology, and they were much peaceful than the ones came out 3000 yrs ago.. the monotheistic, rule giving gods.

Originally posted by luciddream
reply to post by Mykah

 

I do not think good needs evil, or that we need evil, I think rather that evil itself needs good to exist. For example; People die from old age naturally, murder needs a victim. Community can exist between nations, war needs an enemy. Happyness can exist in and of itself, hate needs a target. We could do with out all these discords and the object of their decay would still be fine without them.

There is no such thing as evil or good. It just cycle of nature.

If there is a plus, there HAVE to be a minus.

You are speaking in physics terms and missing or rather subverting my point. I am not talking about normal death, but premature death. I am not talking about plain bacteria, but viral infection. I'm not talking about negative positive electrons (which are harmony), but splitting an atom to make bombs.

There is nothing natural about genocide, war, rape. These things are bad. If you think rape or genocide aren't evil, and would even call them necessary, you are insane. Comparing evil and discord with natural balances is part of the deceit which instigates evil's parasitic nature as being necessary when it is not.

Originally posted by Funafuti
reply to post by Mykah

 

But perhaps without the parasite we wouldn't realize how beautiful the symbiotic Tree/Mushroom-relationship is? Can beauty exist in itself just like happiness? Isn't beauty just a form of happiness?

I think happiness is beautiful, and its beautiful to be happy, neither of them require a parasite of discord.

reply to post by Mykah


But sadness not only gives contrast, it gives happiness a stronger meaning and worth.

If it was sunny every day then it would become boring and a cloud on the horizon would be welcome.

One cannot go through life and have no scars to show for it. If that were possible then I would counter by saying that person truly hasn't lived.

Originally posted by Terminal1
reply to post by Mykah

 

But sadness not only gives contrast, it gives happiness a stronger meaning and worth.

If it was sunny every day then it would become boring and a cloud on the horizon would be welcome.

One cannot go through life and have no scars to show for it. If that were possible then I would counter by saying that person truly hasn't lived.

I never said sadness was evil or discord though. I also like cloudy weather, so do trees, they love the rain. Scares are beautiful reminders, being injured is not evil. You are talking about natural balances, which ARE harmony. What I am calling uneccessary is parasitic evil pretending to be necessary in this harmony. There is a difference.

Not truly living is being born with aids. Being molested as a child then committing suicide because of it. Being imprisoned with debt to pay for bombs against poor families.

We have been deceived to think evil is permissible and necessary because it masquerades as balance when really it is a parasite which leads to imbalance. This is the farce of pantheism reimerging in new age spirituality, making slaves from would be saints.

reply to post by Mykah

This bacteria is like discord, it needs something other than itself to exist, and simply by existing as a parasite it creates decay and premature death.

This seems like an apt description of humanity.

Now imagine nothing but trees and mushrooms, nothing to get in their way as the continue to grow and flourish continuously and forever, no decay, no premature death. Eventually, that parasite would not seem so evil, and discord would be yearned for.

However I don't think this has anything to do with pantheism. Maybe dualism though..

Good thoughts.

Originally posted by NiNjABackflip
reply to post by Mykah

 

This bacteria is like discord, it needs something other than itself to exist, and simply by existing as a parasite it creates decay and premature death.

This seems like an apt description of humanity.

Now imagine nothing but trees and mushrooms, nothing to get in their way as the continue to grow and flourish continuously and forever, no decay, no premature death. Eventually, that parasite would not seem so evil, and discord would be yearned for.

However I don't think this has anything to do with pantheism. Maybe dualism though..

Good thoughts.

The tree mushroom relationship is just an allegory. Inside a balanced ecosystem no parasite is necessary, organisms create a natural balance with each other free of unnecessary decay. If a tree grows forever and never dies to a parasite, where is the harm? Its existence not only respects the autonomy of other life forms, but also supports them. This is the opposite of a parasite, who not only exists through the violation of autonomy, but destroys it without regard to anything but itself.

So too do we find our backwards society's might makes right doctrine to be parasitic in nature, not only to the natural world, but also victimized members of the world which it makes a host from. The pantheistic view that a parasitic existence is as valuable as a harmonious one is a perversion of the natural order of duality, the true duality of harmony between balanced counter parts. This is the grand deceit we face today as builders of our true existence. We are beings which benefit from operating in harmony with all other beings. Evil would have us believe its parasitic existence is necessary, even valuable, but this a lie.

Harmony is the illusion of covered discord, it only exists because of it's opposite.

Discord is the illusion of covered harmony, it only exists because of it's opposite.

There are no extremes to label as harmonious or discordant, other than idealistic views for definition, just shades in between that hold both.

Duality is also dualistic imo in that the duality always needs defining from a single person's view but can always be seen as something else by someone else.

Crrrrrazy!

Harmony is the.natural state of all things when observed by a mind free of delusion and in line with natures purpose to survive. Hate is had by those who are weak in the purpose. It is reserved for the ones who are confused in the complexity ofthe means to achieve the purpose. Sometimes, humans kill humans to survive, even predatororaly. That is not murder. Other times humans kill humans out of delusion. That is no good.

reply to post by Mykah


I disagree that "evil" is the only dependent polarity. Good and evil both are subjective terms. They have more to do with perception than reality. We perceive good and evil based on our interpretation of the situation. I'll use your war example:

You state that community can exist between nations, but that war needs an enemy. This presupposes that war is not a natural state of being, that conflict, competition, and rivalry are not part of Nature or the natural order of things. Reality seems to contradict this. Evolution itself is a continuous war on a biological level. It is not necessarily one species in-fighting, but it is a battle of qualities and characteristics against the environment.

In fact, without this conflict between evolution and Nature, then human beings would never have evolved to our current state, or developed the cognitive processes which we now utilize so freely. The reality is that competition, conflict, and rivalry are the sole reason why anything happens at all. It is cause and effect, a catalyst instigating change.

A truly utopian society is a wonderful fantasy though, and I'm sure everyone hopes for it in some small way, myself included. But we cannot ignore that trial, strife, obstacles, and adversity make us who we are. It is the thing which opposes us that causes us to grow and change. When you remove that element, you lose a fundamental building block of the Nature.

Good and evil, if they exist at all beyond perception, are a holistic system. One feeding the other in a continuous cycle out of necessity. Without something evil, then a good action is meaningless. Living in a symbiotic manner is no more rewarding than living alone when there is no opposite against which to measure one state. Mutual goodness is effective only because there is evil which would destroy individual goodness.



I'm curious about your opinions on pantheism as well. My understanding of pantheism is in relation to religious and spiritual ideals, specifically a hierarchal arrangement of presiding forces: gods, archons, spirits, asuras, loa. My own study of ancient pagan and polytheistic beliefs has revealed to me that pantheism is, actually, more involved with psychological processes, and phenomena visible in the natural world, than with philosophical discussions.

Maybe there's another element to pantheism I'm just not as familiar with. Could you expand on the "farce of pantheism" from your title?

~ Wandering Scribe

reply to post by Wandering Scribe

You make the claim evil is a necessary thing for good to exist, but don't support it.
I think you are wrong. I see good in the world all the time existing free of evil. On the other hand, any time I see evil in the world it is directly tied to destroying that which is good. It seems then evil is a parasite.

Of course good can overcome evil and that itself is good. However, this occurence does not necessitate evil's existance. I also think we as conscious humanoids are capable of transcending the kill or be killed attitude of Darwin's take on evolution. We are better than that.

You also presuppose ethical subjectivity without supporting the claim. To continue down this road of discourse one must accept a higher code of natural law as having existence. Otherwise contrasting evil and good in relation to each other is counter intuitive for they both become a farce. If one cannot accept objective ethical realism than there is no point in even discussing duality.

reply to post by Mykah

You make the claim evil is a necessary thing for good to exist, but don't support it.

My entire reply was filled with examples of where good and evil serve equally important functions, including my small foray into evolutionary theory.

The only way you have missed the examples of conflict, adversity, strife, and opposition being necessary to life in my post is if you didn't actually read what I wrote, but just skimmed.

I also think we as conscious humanoids are capable of transcending the kill or be killed attitude of Darwin's take on evolution.

You can't "transcend" the process of natural selection in evolution. Natural selection is the mechanism upon which evolution works, period. Species evolve based on the adversity which their environment presents. That's exactly how qualities developed. There is absolutely no evolving physically or mentally without some kind of conflict being involved.

You also presuppose ethical subjectivity without supporting the claim. To continue down this road of discourse one must accept a higher code of natural law as having existence.

Not at all. Subjectivity, by definition, presupposes that no higher code exists. For good and evil to be subjective, based solely on the perception of the individual means the exact opposite of what you suggested. It means there is no God, no Law Code established by God, no Universal mechanism which must be adhered to, or any of that.

Subjectivity means there is no good, nor evil; only our perception of events.

You also forgot to explain your thoughts on pantheism when I asked.



~ Wandering Scribe

If good and evil are subjective like you claim, rape and greed can be "good" subjectively. This is not the case. Rape and greed are always bad, anyone who thinks them good is a fool who lives in perversion of natural law, of objective ethical realism. We could certainly do without them.

We transcend Darwinian evolution all the time, its called modern medicine.

Good exists all the time without evil. I did read your post, but you did not prove evil isn't parasitic. Good overcoming evil as per your examples does not necessitate evil the way youd like to think it does. Show me one example where evil exists without something good it feeds from. If you cannot, it seems then evil is a weaker parasite to good's pure nature, meaning we could do with out the bad and good would still exist.

PS. You claimed I ignored your points while half quoting me, leaving out the most important part

Originally posted by Mykah
reply to post by Wandering Scribe

 

Of course good can overcome evil and that itself is good. However, this occurence does not necessitate evil's existance.

So why edit out the answer then claim I didn't answer you, and also claim I didn't read when clearly I did? I see now I am debating with a rhetorical narcasist less concerned with truth and more with manipulating what people appear as having said. You could do everyone reading this thread a favor and spare us regurgitative rhetoric and deception by not posting any further.

reply to post by Mykah

If good and evil are subjective like you claim, rape and greed can be "good" subjectively. This is not the case. Rape and greed are always bad, anyone who thinks them good is a fool who lives in perversion of natural law, of objective ethical realism. We could certainly do without them.

Greed can be subjectively good. Maybe someone get's greedy and hordes all of the nuclear weapons on Earth, and then locks them in a vault because their greed prevents them from using them, as it would deplete their collection. A greedy hoarder who hordes away a dangerous thing is a good thing, not a bad thing, subjectively of course.

While I don't personally condone rape, I have met plenty of radical feminists who believe rape would be a satisfactory punishment for someone who commits rape. While I disagree with the activity—I adhere to the philosophy of Ahimsa—the lex talion philosophy has been popular for thousands of years. So, subjectively, raping a rapist can be a beneficial countermeasure in the eyes of radical feminism.

We transcend Darwinian evolution all the time, its called modern medicine.

Wrong!

Medicine is not evolutionary, or natural. Medicine is an artificial construct, a chemical composition which we manufacture. Evolutionary theory is a process of natural selection in response to Nature.

However, Nature, in response to medicine, also develops super strains of the virus and bacteria which our medicine defeats. So, even with our medicine, we're just furthering evolutionary theory, not transcending it as you claim.

Good exists all the time without evil. I did read your post, but you did not prove evil isn't parasitic. Good overcoming evil as per your examples does not necessitate evil the way youd like to think it does. Show me one example where evil exists without something good it feeds from. If you cannot, it seems then evil is a weaker parasite to good's pure nature, meaning we could do with out the bad and good would still exist.

You're playing a game of chicken-and-egg here. Presupposing that the "good" action must have come before the "evil" action. Where's your proof that medicine existed before disease? Seems to me that the "bad" existed before the "good" there... maybe you've got it all backwards and the "good" is the parasitic nature, feeding off the adversity and opposition which life naturally provides?

As for "good overcoming evil," I disagree that it ever really does. If "good" truly overcame "evil," ever, then there would be no more evil, anywhere, ever. There's plenty of "evil" in the world though. Peace has not overcome war. Medicine has not overcome disease.

Now, if good and evil are subjective, dependent, not on definitions, but individual interpretations based on perspective, then it makes sense why evil still exists: because anything can be evil, depending on the situation. And anything can be good, depending on the situation.

And finally: what use is medicine without disease? What use is invention and technology, without the dangers of manual labor? Everything that is good, is only good because something evil reveals what life would be like without it. Take away the evil, and the good is meaningless.

PS. You claimed I ignored your points while half quoting me, leaving out the most important part

I left a link to your full post, and quoted the first sentence of each paragraph I was replying too. This is a technique which allows anyone reading to know what points I am replying to, without wasting all of my characters by quoting your whole post. But, to appease your inability to click the link all replies create, I'm quoting every letter you typed this time.

And the part you've twice failed to expand upon was your view on pantheism. Which I'm still waiting for. Its in the very title of your thread, but you've not explained how pantheism applies to anything you've said.

So why edit out the answer then claim I didn't answer you, and also claim I didn't read when clearly I did? I see now I am debating with a rhetorical narcasist less concerned with truth and more with manipulating what people appear as having said. You could do everyone reading this thread a favor and spare us regurgitative rhetoric and deception by not posting any further.

Hey, look, name-calling! A true sign of a well-developed, fully self-realized, and valid argument!

I know, I'll prove your theory!

You turned to name-calling. That's evil. So, what good thing were you "parasiting" by resorting to name-calling? All I can think is that it was in response to my own post. So, I guess by your own philosophy my post was "good" since your name-calling was the "evil" which "parasited" it.

~ Wandering Scribe

Describing some one who uses rhetoric to advertise pantheism as a rhetorical narcasist isn't name calling, its apt description. Shallow paroting of ethical subjectivity is not needed, thank you.

I'm interested to hear others thoughts on my original post.

reply to post by Mykah


Yeah nice try but the whole righteousness without evil is a lie. How so? Eventually people would forget about what you would call evil and new evils would be more prominent.

Something like not being exactly right about a question would be evil. Something like being late or too early would be evil.

Evil is never going to die aslong as you believe there is good.

Let's take a look a homosexuals.

Homosexuals used and still to a point had to live in fear of straight men. Now that straight men has been taught and or are openly accepting of homosexuals.

Homosexuals want to take advantage of this in these ways. Either they see the straight man as weak for ebing accepting int hat hey maybe we can turn him gay.

There of course is the reason why they was being beat to death and killed int he first place. So we have to ask was straight men hating them without cause or of homophobia.

Or do homosexuals just have know filter that tells them when someone is being cool and when someone is interested sexually.

Back to the point. Homosexuals will go more on the offensive against straight people the more open and accepting society becomes.

They will for the most part try to rid humanity of the straight man.

What's proof of this? If they can't turn a straight man which is impossible if your intelligent. Obviously you have to have an active gay gene to be one.

So there goes any intelligent conversation with that kind out the window.

Anyways if they can't turn him they will breed him out.

So then we must ask ourselves.

Where does that fit into the harmony of nature. Last I checked nature is pretty heterosexual!!

Originally posted by Manunnaki
Homosexuals want to take advantage of this in these ways. Either they see the straight man as weak for ebing accepting int hat hey maybe we can turn him gay.

I think Freud could say something about that.

reply to post by Mykah

Shallow paroting of ethical subjectivity is not needed, thank you.

Just because you do not like it, believe it, or want to accept it, does not make it so. You disagree with ethical subjectivity, which is OK, you're allowed to have your own opinion on it. I happen to agree with ethical subjectivity. If your own philosophy cannot explain why ethical subjectivity is wrong, then it is your philosophy, and not ethical subjectivity, which needs to go away.

Describing some one who uses rhetoric to advertise pantheism as a rhetorical narcasist isn't name calling, its apt description.

I haven't "advertised" anything about pantheism. Unless, again, you're using a definition of pantheism different from my own. But, because you refuse to explain what definition of pantheism you're using, I cannot really be sure.

So, how about you take a few moments here to define pantheism, as you're using it?

I'm interested to hear others thoughts on my original post.

I'm interested to hear your thoughts on your post.

And besides, this is a forum. Lots of people can respond anytime they want. It's not a "first-come, first-serve" type of situation. The podium is open to any and all, whenever they feel so inclined to chime in.

Also, I didn't see any of my post quoted, or even a reply-link. I was going to go and complain about how you might be manipulating my words.

But then I figured it wouldn't be worth it. I'd rather spend my time trying to get you to explain your own.

~ Wandering Scribe