Intuitive Idealism vs. Analytic Idealism (Part II): An alternative formulation of idealism

[Steve Petermann]

Eugene,

Just a reminder, as BK said many times, the primary reason that he chose the #2 approach is the problem of evil: he believes that a meta-cognitive intentional and benevolent MAL would not be capable of creating the world (in its own mind) with so much suffering. He has a point, and it just means that the problem of evil is an essential part of the overall equation and should not be neglected. I met too many people (myself included), including dedicated spiritual seekers, who stumbled upon the problem of evil and were opposed to the theistic view mostly because of it. So its not enough just to mention that suffering can be mitigated, this problem deserves serious consideration (and I know that you do give it a serious consideration in your theology).

Yes, the problem of evil is the elephant in the room for theists and, as you said, why many people reject theism. I continue to struggle with this issue (shouldn't all theists?) So, for theists who believe that God is both all-powerful and beneficent, the question is how to approach this problem? This is a complex problem that I have addressed many times on my website but here I'll offer a few points to consider. Typically mitigating factors are offered like the free-will defense. Of course, this doesn't account for what we call natural evil like hurricanes, disease, and the like. Still, mitigations do offer some defense. Another tact would be to offer reasons or goals.

Typically, there is a sense that an all-powerful, beneficent creator God would not have created a world where the evil we see is present. So, if this world doesn't fit, as a thought experiment, what would a world be like created by an all-powerful, beneficent God? No pain? No suffering? No free-will, No death? No growth? No change? I think it is worth pondering. Would it be something to be desired? This harkens to the idea of heaven or bliss in the religious traditions. If we really think about it, I don't think we would really want to be part of such a world. What would it be like to be in such an existence? Many of the things we appreciate would not be present. Most of the people who visit this discussion like to learn. The act of learning both creates and destroys. The old is destroyed to some extent and the new takes its place. This is true of every creative act. Often this is a painful process but, nonetheless, we seek it out because we see some merit in it. We see this all the time in other venues like athletics, music, art, business, philosophy, etc. We seek out those challenging situations where we are willing to suffer to achieve some goal.

The world we live in, just as it is, offers these opportunities. However, the very same forces and processes that create a world where love, beauty, and meaning are possible, are also responsible for the horrors we see. So the question is, is it worth it to have the presence of evil? What we have learned from science is that we live in a universe that is fine-tuned for life to exist. That very same fine-tuning is responsible for both the good and evil in the universe. Change some parameter slightly and life, as we know it, wouldn't exist. So, if we want a world without evil what would we be will to give up? No growth (it's painful), no learning, no challenge, no risk of failure, no struggle in the creative process? If we think about it, the very things we love and enjoy about life also stem from the same processes that create the ugly and hateful. So, I think it's worth pondering what kind of world we would really like to be in. Would we even want God to create a heavenly, blissful world for us?

Now, we might not want a world without challenge and growth but when we see some of the horrors in life we are still shocked and repulsed. Who isn't repulsed when we see innocent children starving, being abused, or dying of cancer. Or genocide, rape, or torture? Whenever I see such things I also question God's wisdom. How could I not? This is particularly true with theologies where God is distant in a state of perfection, ontologically unsoiled by finite life. The question is, is there a theological ontology where these horrors might be mitigated to some degree? I think theology is about addressing existential issues in the best way it can. Accordingly, I think the aspect monism ontology that I suggest may offer some level of mitigation. It says that the child dying of cancer is literally God living that life and dying of cancer. The pain and suffering are literally God's as that child. God is ontologically getting soiled by finite life and taking an ontological risk. For God to take on life this way, there must be something so worthwhile about finite life that it is worth the cost, pain, and suffering.

I don't think there is any totally satisfactory answer to the problem of evil. Inevitably, it comes down to making a choice between alternatives. Do we live in a meaningless, autonomic world or is there some intentional purposefulness that we may never fully understand in a world where evil is present?

[Eugene I]

It's exactly the same with everything I write here. When I speak of Time-Consciousness spectrum I don't aim to play with big words and try to sound techy. It is a domain of inner experiences but we really need to make an effort at least to experience the thoughts and not only look at them from safe distance, preserving the sanctity of the ego.

Cleric, you should not assume that you are the only meditator here who practically work with and analyze the thoughts and conscious experiences on a regular basis. What you are describing here (observations and studies of the inter-relations of conscious phenomena "outside" of the framework of the ego) has been part of millennia of both Eastern and Western spiritual practices. We sit in meditation and observe the conscious phenomena - sensations, thoughts, imaginations and intuitions with their meanings, we analyze their interconnections, we have intuitions of how they are inter-related, we observe how our egoic structures function and respond. You are not the only one who do it on a regular basis. The difference is how we interpret these intuitions and insights ourselves and how we present them to people.

There are two ways people usually approach philosophical and spiritual endeavors:
- The "scientific way" is to realize that we approach the knowledge of reality asymptotically and our understanding and interpretation of it is never fully true, as well as never fully wrong, but is a work-in progress of penetrating into the depths of reality. This requires some humility to accept that your current interpretation may not the the ultimate truth or at least not the most advanced today's interpretation of it, and other people views (and other philosophies and spiritual traditions) may also contain some facets of the truths that you might be missing. In this way you become open to further developing your views and adopting new insights if they turn out to be more accurate and adequate. One may adopt certain views as beliefs and have a religious and devotional attitude, that by itself does not make someone a sectarian.
- The "sectarian" way is to believe that you or the group you belong to is in a possession of the truth and have the most advanced knowledge of it and access to it, and everyone who may have different views is undoubtedly wrong and on that basis is considered to be the "enemy of the truth" and can be personally attacked (because the truth has to be defended against enemies). One of the features of this approach is a "black-and-white" epistemology based on the binary logic - the views can be either "right" or "wrong" with no other alternatives. Their views actually may contain certain truths, but they are usually mixed with their own fantasies and interpretations that they take as absolute truths without a grain of doubt due to the lack of self-critical attitude. Notwithstanding the truths that their views may contain, it's the sectarian attitude that is problematic. We see it in every spiritual tradition - there are adepts that take the "scientific" open and humble approach, as well as adepts that form into sects. The sectarian approach is problematic mostly for the members themselves because they become "stuck" in their beliefs for a long time and block themselves from further spiritual evolution by being closed to any views that do not align with their current beliefs.

Now, regarding the "spiritual science" that you promote - I personally learnt a lot from it and adjusted my views to adopt many of its insights. Hagel was undoubtedly one of the greatest philosophers of all times and his dialectical approach was adopted by many of the later philosophers. I also liked Scott's mumorfic and tetralemic-polarity ideas. Personally I never jump into believing anything and usually carefully consider (and openly express) all possible doubts and criticism before I agree on anything, this is the approach I learnt from science and engineering, plus negative experience of my spiritual journey of too quickly jumping into adopting unsupported beliefs. But it's the sectarian approach you guys take that I have a problem with and that I resist, and so, no matter how much I agree with the views presented, I don't want to be part of a sect. Hagel and Goethe were definitely not sectarians, but I can sense the sectarian approach already in the Steiner's works, and I understand where it's coming from based on his long-time participation in the Theosophical society, which is, I would say, a "mildly" sectarian organization.

Look for example how Adur present's his Intuitive Idealism - he is open to criticism and to re-adjusting his views, he discusses the arguments constructively without any personal bias or personal attacks, he does not assume he is right and others are wrong and does not treat those who disagree as the enemies. I can see that his views are supported by his long-time spiritual practice and experiential insights into the non-dual nature of reality. Even though I many not agree with everything he says, I can still see the way he presents his views as a sign of spiritual maturity.

[Eugene I]

I don't think there is any totally satisfactory answer to the problem of evil. Inevitably, it comes down to making a choice between alternatives. Do we live in a meaningless, autonomic world or is there some intentional purposefulness that we may never fully understand in a world where evil is present?

I agree with what you said, Steve. But as I mentioned, there is another part of the equation: do we (as monads with free will) have any say in such choice, or is it God only that makes this choice for us. One may argue that our consent is not even necessary because we ultimately are the same God who made the choice. Yet, from the moment we become free-willed monads, we do make our own choices and have God-independent free-will, and based on that, ethically God would need our consent to agree with his choice. Again, I think this dilemma is easily resolved in the worldviews (including theistic) that adopt the reincarnation, but for the theistic philosophies or traditions that do not adopt reincarnation I still see it as morally problematic. I actually met a person with strong Christian beliefs who, based only on this moral consideration, also adopted the reincarnation view and rejected the traditional Christion views denying reincarnation.

[Steve Petermann]

I agree with what you said, Steve. But as I mentioned, there is another part of the equation: do we (as monads with free will) have any say in such choice, or is it God only that makes this choice for us. One may argue that our consent is not even necessary because we ultimately are the same God who made the choice. Yet, from the moment we become free-willed monads, we do make our own choices and have God-independent free-will, and based on that, ethically God would need our consent to agree with his choice. Again, I think this dilemma is easily resolved in the worldviews (including theistic) that adopt the reincarnation, but for the theistic philosophies or traditions that do not adopt reincarnation I still see it as morally problematic. I actually met a person with strong Christian beliefs who, based only on this moral consideration, also adopted the reincarnation view and rejected the traditional Christion views denying reincarnation.

This is a difficult area for theism. It falls under the category of divine action — how does God act (if at all) in this reality. In Calvinism God acts coercively determining everything. At the other end of the spectrum, Process theology has a weird theology of God (pseudo-God in my opinion) but in that theology, God can't make anything happen in this reality. God's role is merely as an actual entity who offers lures but can't actualize anything. Then there is supernaturalism where God brute forces certain things when God wants. I think all these are highly problematic.

In my theology, God-as-living (everything in this reality) has free-will and makes free choices within the constraints of each life. However, each living mind is also part of God-as-transcendent's mind. God-as-transcendent honors God-as-living's free will but there is a partnership in how reality gets constituted. God-as-transcendent has certain goals in mind for this reality but God-as-living also has individual goals and inclinations. At a particular point, these may be in consonance or dissonance. Here a metaphor might be like two magnets. Each has its own impetus and intensity. This interplay occurs within the realm of possibilities, one of which will get actualized. They could agree and be attracted together or they could disagree and be repulsed. God-as-living can resist the impetus of God-as-transcendent and freely choose a different path. Ultimately reality gets constituted in this partnership. There is a mystical union at work.

I'm not sure if that addresses your comment. Also, could you say more about the problem that reincarnation solves and how it solves it?

[AshvinP]

It's exactly the same with everything I write here. When I speak of Time-Consciousness spectrum I don't aim to play with big words and try to sound techy. It is a domain of inner experiences but we really need to make an effort at least to experience the thoughts and not only look at them from safe distance, preserving the sanctity of the ego.

Cleric, you should not assume that you are the only meditator here who practically work with and analyze the thoughts and conscious experiences on a regular basis. What you are describing here (observations and studies of the inter-relations of conscious phenomena "outside" of the framework of the ego) has been part of millennia of both Eastern and Western spiritual practices. We sit in meditation and observe the conscious phenomena - sensations, thoughts, imaginations and intuitions with their meanings, we analyze their interconnections, we have intuitions of how they are inter-related, we observe how our egoic structures function and respond. You are not the only one who do it on a regular basis. The difference is how we interpret these intuitions and insights ourselves and how we present them to people.

I don't get why it's so hard for you to admit either a) you completely disagree with Cleric's approach and results, or b) you have no idea what he is saying. Either one is fine, because we know it is neither an easy approach to adopt nor an easy approach to learn if you are not already familiar with it. Even Cleric is still at the "a, b, c" of spiritual science as he has remarked many times before. What you are calling "sectarian" is the Christocentric aspect of spiritual science, and that is THE most important aspect. Steiner does not think we can reach knowledge of the higher worlds without going through the Christ-being and what he accomplished for us in the 1st century A.D. with his Incarnation and sacrifice on the Cross. Now, as Cleric has also pointed out, that doesn't mean you have to read the Gospels and start reciting Christian creeds... in fact, people who have never heard of Christ can still find Him from within their own experience. But if you are already familiar with the Christ events on Earth, as most people in the developed world are, then there is no point for us to say those are not of the utmost importance in the Cosmic evolution of Spirit, because they most definitely are.

So, again, why can't you just say you disagree with all of that and therefore with Steiner, with Cleric, with me, with Scott, and with our spiritual science related arguments here, and then move to critique them without misrepresenting them? Somehow you conceive of yourself as a victim in this whole thing, when we are simply trying to help you understand the arguments being made so you don't keep misrepresenting them.

[Soul_of_Shu]

So much for you guys being 'done' ... not that one should be surprised in the least ... Out of curiosity, when upon some rare occasion you lighten up, how does that look?

[Eugene I]

I'm not sure if that addresses your comment. Also, could you say more about the problem that reincarnation solves and how it solves it?

Yes, it does address it in general, but the issue is in the particular way this interplay of free wills ethically resolves with the problem of evil. Let me illustrate it with this scenario. Let's say an innocent child is suffering from cancer and asking me why God made him to suffer.
- I tell him: "God decided that the suffering is worth all the benefits and development opportunities that would be impossible without it."
- He says: "But what if I do not agree with this choice? Why did not God ask for my consent if I accept suffering and agree with such choice? What moral right God has to make this choice for me?"
Now I can tell him: "You are God and God is you, so his choice is your choice too". But he can rightly object: "No, because being ontologically the same God, I became an independent spiritual agent with my own free will. So, if God would be an ethical being, he would also feel obliged to ask for my consent to accept suffering." What could I tell him to answer?

But in the reincarnation scenario, I could tell him that he actually gave this consent before choosing to reincarnate, he just forgot about it, and that would resolve the dilemma. Note that I'm not saying that God does not have moral right to make us suffer without our content (so I'm not "blaming" God), I'm just saying that IF he would be a highly ethical and benevolent being, he would feel morally obliged to ask us for such consent.

[Lou Gold]

I don't think there is any totally satisfactory answer to the problem of evil. Inevitably, it comes down to making a choice between alternatives. Do we live in a meaningless, autonomic world or is there some intentional purposefulness that we may never fully understand in a world where evil is present?

Steve,

Why is evil caused by choice rather than simply being the way duality works? Everything born dies. All manifestation has an "evil twin" -- good/evil, heaven/hell, right/wrong, etc. To be born is to enter a terminal illness. YES! Duality demands (compels) choice between 'good' and 'evil' but I don't get that choice causes evil. What am I missing?

[Soul_of_Shu]

Yes, it does address it in general, but the issue is in the particular way this interplay of free wills ethically resolves with the problem of evil. Let me illustrate it with this scenario. Let's say an innocent child is suffering from cancer and asking me why God made him to suffer.
- I tell him: "God decided that the suffering is worth all the benefits and development opportunities that would be impossible without it."
- He says: "But what if I do not agree with this choice? Why did not God ask for my consent for me if I accept suffering and agree with such choice? What moral right God has to make this choice for me?"
Now I can tell him: "You are God and God is you, so his choice is your choice too". But he can rightly object: "No, because being ontologically the same God, I became an independent spiritual agent with my own free will. So, if God would be an ethical being, he would also feel obliged to ask for my consent to accept suffering." What could I tell him to answer?

As someone who as a child was terribly abused, and suffered greatly as a result, now seeing that as playing an integral function in who I've become in the here and now, that realization had nothing to do with any rationalizations about God's role in it, but more to do with now being able to view it from the metamorphosed perspective, even allowing the forgiving of the abuser who was also transformed by way of this heart's transfiguration from karma-bound evil-doer into another wayward soul on the journey in need of redemption and the revelation of That which everyOne is in essence. As for the multi-incarnational possibility that in some other timeline of the corporeal construct I was in the role of the abuser abusing the one that became my tormentor, it seems I can't rule that out either. Suffice to say that it's all far more complicated than the simplistic formulations that most come up with.

[AshvinP]

So much for you guys being 'done' ... not that one should be surprised in the least ... Out of curiosity, when upon some rare occasion you lighten up, how does that look?

My fault, I guess... but it has become beyond farcical at this point. Cleric saying what he experienced and what he meant by the words used to describe those experiences, and the implications of those experiences, and someone responding, "no... you actually experienced this, and you actually meant that, and your implications are actually the opposite of what you thought they were." It takes me back to the good ol' days (~2 months ago) when findingblanks was telling us Steiner agreed with Schopenhauer, Steiner did not mean what he wrote, Schopenhauer disagreed with BK, and did not mean what he wrote, and no one really understood any of them

Anyway, on the "problem of evil", I think Bergson was on point:

To the extent that we distend our will, tend to reabsorb our thought in it and get into greater sympathy with the effort which engenders things, these formidable problems recede, diminish, disappear. For we feel that a divinely creative will or thought is too full of itself, in the immensity of its reality, to have the slightest idea of a lack of order or lack of being. To imagine the possibility of absolute disorder, all the more the possibility of nothingness, would be for it to say to itself that it might have not existed at all, and that would be a weakness incompatible with its nature which is force. The more we turn toward this creative will, the more the doubts which trouble the sane and normal man seem to us abnormal and morbid.