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

[Soul_of_Shu]

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.

Yes, I can resonate with this too ... But I'll let my previous reply to Eugene stand nonetheless.

[AshvinP]

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.

Yes, I can resonate with this too ... But I'll let my previous reply to Eugene stand nonetheless.

Your reply actually sounded very similar to Bergson here. Once caught up in the metamorphic rhythms of creative being, we sense the eternal fullness of conscious life which could never entertain the possibility of not suffering i.e. not existing. I also think it's important to remind ourselves to ask, "why am I having these doubts?" It's possible we are so distraught at the level of suffering in the world that we cannot stop thinking these doubts, but it's also possible we desire these doubts to crush our soul so that we can rationalize avoiding the Spirit. As always, Self-knowledge is the only path forward. Are we really looking for an answer to these "formidable problems" or are we really hoping none will be found?

A good question might be - "if I was at a great music concert, fully conscious yet completely absorbed by the rhythm and harmony, feeling at One with the Creative essence and everyone else so absorbed, would I ever stop to ask myself this question?"

[Steve Petermann]

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?

With my ontology that would be like God choosing not to live a life because it would suffer. That would seem to subvert God's purposes. It would also presuppose a full-blown, reasoning, free life before it existed. So, I wouldn't have a coherent answer for that dialog.

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.

I'm not familiar with this scenario for reincarnation. My understanding is that in Eastern systems there is no choice whether to reincarnate or not until all karmic issues are resolved and enlightenment achieved.
From Wikipedia:

The cycle of rebirth and suffering continues until a being attains nirvana. One requirement for ending this cycle is to extinguish the fires of attachment (raga), aversion (dvesha) and ignorance (moha or avidya). As Bhikkhu Bodhi states "For as long as one is entangled by craving, one remains bound in saṃsāra, the cycle of birth and death; but when all craving has been extirpated, one attains Nibbāna, deliverance from the cycle of birth and death."[50]

[Steve Petermann]

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?

Not sure I understand. Choices can be for the good or evil, can't they?

[Lou Gold]

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?

Not sure I understand. Choices can be for the good or evil, can't they?

I'm asking, "Is not good/evil embedded in the essence of duality?" Therefore, active participation in duality (chosen or not) will compel subsequent choices between good/evil, which generate or fuel more good/evil, but choice did not 'cause' this embedded dynamic.

[Steve Petermann]

I'm asking, "Is not good/evil embedded in the essence of duality?" Therefore, active participation in duality (chosen or not) will compel subsequent choices between good/evil, which generate or fuel more good/evil, but choice did not 'cause' this embedded dynamic.

Sorry but I'm not well versed in the dual/nondual language so I couldn't offer an answer to that.

[Eugene I]

With my ontology that would be like God choosing not to live a life because it would suffer. That would seem to subvert God's purposes. It would also presuppose a full-blown, reasoning, free life before it existed. So, I wouldn't have a coherent answer for that dialog.

I'm not familiar with this scenario for reincarnation. My understanding is that in Eastern systems there is no choice whether to reincarnate or not until all karmic issues are resolved and enlightenment achieved.
From Wikipedia:

The cycle of rebirth and suffering continues until a being attains nirvana. One requirement for ending this cycle is to extinguish the fires of attachment (raga), aversion (dvesha) and ignorance (moha or avidya). As Bhikkhu Bodhi states "For as long as one is entangled by craving, one remains bound in saṃsāra, the cycle of birth and death; but when all craving has been extirpated, one attains Nibbāna, deliverance from the cycle of birth and death."[50]

The views on reincarnation do not need to be limited to the Buddhist ones (which are somewhat limited IMO). In light of new information that we have form Prof. Stevenson research and from wealth of NDE and regression therapy accounts, reincarnation (hypothetically) exists, it is voluntary and it happens due to a variety of souls motivations. But you are right, this is based on the assumption that life of personalized monads/souls existed before and exists beyond the human life in material bodies. This is also in line with some Western traditions like Judaism (that assumes "transmigration of souls") or Origen's theology.

[AshvinP]

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?

With my ontology that would be like God choosing not to live a life because it would suffer. That would seem to subvert God's purposes. It would also presuppose a full-blown, reasoning, free life before it existed. So, I wouldn't have a coherent answer for that dialog.

We should remember there was a time when people thought simple life-forms spontaneously generate from inanimate mud or whatever, i.e. life comes from non-life, and then it was finally shown by Pasteur that life only comes from life. The die-hard materialists (and even some idealists) are still holding out hope for "abiogenesis", but spiritually minded people (should) know better. So why should it be any different with the human soul? Can the soul come from non-soul? I am not sure if you hold to reincarnation or not (I did not find anything in my search on your blog), so if you do feel free to ignore this, but if not, there are many reasons why only reincarnation makes sense of human history and spiritual development, on both the collective and the individual level, apart from the really messy theological conundrums that arise without it.

[Steve Petermann]

We should remember there was a time when people thought simple life-forms spontaneously generate from inanimate mud or whatever, i.e. life comes from non-life, and then it was finally shown by Pasteur that life only comes from life. The die-hard materialists (and even some idealists) are still holding out hope for "abiogenesis", but spiritually minded people (should) know better. So why should it be any different with the human soul? Can the soul come from non-soul? I am not sure if you hold to reincarnation or not (I did not find anything in my search on your blog), so if you do feel free to ignore this, but if not, there are many reasons why only reincarnation makes sense of human history and spiritual development, on both the collective and the individual level, apart from the really messy theological conundrums that arise without it.

I'm agnostic on reincarnation. All I can draw from a divine idealism is that when we die, while this body dies, the memory of us and this life is eternal in the mind of God. What God chooses to do or not do with that memory is okay with me.

[Eugene I]

I'm agnostic on reincarnation. All I can draw from a divine idealism is that when we die, while this body dies, the memory of us and this life is eternal in the mind of God. What God chooses to do or not do with that memory is okay with me.

Agnostic position is always safe