Nah wrote:I'll try to make it more explicit for you.
Following quotes are from your posts.
They all contain at least one good/evil evaluation without mention of for who (or what) it is good/bad and how you can say it (compared to what, how it is evaluated/verified), etc.
I'll put the part in bold.I don't think good/evil dualism is bad. I think of some things as good and some things as evil; therefore, I participate in good/evil dualism. But I try to be fluid about it, and to see things in context. That is the nondual aspect which I value as "good".Faust wrote a nice post about "evil" in this thread. His post there implies that we can see good/evil as a relative distinction, but not an absolute one.
So we can see good/evil duality from a nondual point of view. I think that is a good thing to do - it is a worthy undertaking.Nah, I think another way to look at the relationship of the good/evil distinction and nondualism is to assess the level of righteous indignation that accompanies one's moral preferences and beliefs. The greater the level of righteous indignation, the more dualistic. Given this understanding of dualism, valuing the good is not in itself dualistic. Righteous indignation is extra baggage. I'm tempted to say it's a bad thing. I've suggested it before (though I was mostly just kind of playing around).Substantializing "good" and "evil" is immoral in the sense of the word I've made explicit here - morality is about relationship. So "goodness", if it is to be meaningful, is necessarily non-dual. Or to put it another way, what is "good" is what leads towards the understanding and realization of nonduality.
Can you see that you are not specifying one or more of elements in your evaluation/thought?
"good/bad" compared to what? "good" evaluated by what kind of method?
"good" for who? "good" under what condition? "good" within what kind of range/perimeters?
"good" except what kind of cases?
Your first mistake is to see the word "good" and assume it means the same thing in all cases. Good can mean "what God demands", it can mean "what a person ought to do/how a person ought to be", it can mean "universally (morally) correct", it can mean "what I value", it can mean "what I prefer" (i.e. my taste in food), etc.
I've been saying something like "a nondual perspective is good", in slightly different ways. You seem to think I've contradicted myself, as you can't see how "nondual" "is" and "good" can peacefully coexist. I guess my comments about righteous indignation didn't clarify my point, so I'll give an example of how this works:
A simplistic moral outlook is often just an extension of the friend/enemy distinction. Though I may adhere to certain moral codes (most people do that, more or less), I may tend to forget that morality has no essence - it is all relationship. Moral intelligence in my opinion is simply the ability to engage skillfully in sympathetic relationships. One aspect of that ability likely involves a fearless commitment to certain moral codes. Morality is not just some kind of wishy-washy friendliness, it is friendliness with backbone. If I have this moral code I commit to, and some identifiable group of people holds to a different moral code (or seems immoral to me - or therefore seems immoral to me) then I might mistakenly substantialize my values and think of those people as "bad", or "evil". Substantializing my values often involves bloated justification - i.e. my values come from God, therefore I am correct and those who are different from me are wrong. But in fact there is no ultimate justification to depend on, at all. All there is is relativity and relationship. People complain about morality being relativized, but morality is about relationship. That is what morality is. Further, nothing is permanent, and relationships such as the friend-enemy relationship is no exception. So to substantialize the friend=good & enemy=evil equation is unintelligent. Jesus said "love your enemy". He was advocating bringing a nondual perspective into simplistic moral judgements. Why would he advocate something he didn't value? Of course he valued this nondual perspective as good.
Nah, I call what I value "good". If you don't call what you value "good", it doesn't change the fact that we are exactly the same. We value things. I value seeing others as like myself, and I value understanding that what we call good and evil are merely human fabrications which we impose on others. I value the notion, which I believe to be true, that there is no ultimate justification for our actions. I also value the notion that remaining open to others and not clinging to my own preferences and beliefs as objectively true is an intelligent and good way of approaching life.
I think if a person doesn't value nonduality as good, they likely won't ever get beyond their simplistic moral judgements. You can't just pretend you're above it all.