By analysis, philosophy does synthesis. Its true a lot of belief systems have arisen overtime, but when we look at what they believe, human beings are converging in their ideas. Philosophically, the basic of everything is one. If there are two things, they can be considered a division of one. Even though they are two, their root is one and also as a whole they are considered to be one. Thus all human thoughts and concepts, words and matter, though apparently they may be different things, they can be thought of as derived from a conceptual one. Ultimately everything is one. Reductionism also supports it. And this “one” is a “middle” of everything. Its neither mind nor matter. Its neutral. Polar concepts have a neutral non polar concept as their root. Thus the ultimate being may be best expressed by the word X. If philosophy (metaphysics) indeed endeavors for the ultimate, then it is this final unity, X. It is a purer form of the regular absolute neutral monism that I founded. At the highest level of experience of X, neither does I nor You exist. Neither do our approach to X itself and affiliated words exist. Our approach to X only leads us to X realization, at which point we realize that even our approach to X is not. At that point, the human experience may simply be expressed by the one expression, X. This X is the only eternal absolute reality that can be stressed, no other fact or truth can be eternally absolute.
Thus we may conclude that a philosophy of mainly Indian root, vastly ignored by the west, may be the ultimate that we are going to reach. Please note how, scientists are now reaching the conclusion that matter and energy are interrelated. Doesn’t this mean they have a common root?
(Others but reached it before, simply by pure reason.)
If, as you say, “X” is everything, then it is possible that such an assertion is false, which would mean that “X” is not everything, but possibly only “something” or “nothing.” If the assertion could not possibly be false, it could not be asserted, and is therefore meaningless. Therefore, “X” must also contain within its premise the possibility of “true” or “false,” and as such, it is not a monistic function- it is dualistic or dialectic.
This is a problem which many philosophers of the west don’t understand and I have written an article about it.
True and False, these are concepts, and to the absolute monist, true and false are not enough to describe X. The point that monists make is that X is neither true nor false. But even then its not meaningless. To the absolute monists, meaninglessness itself is a polar term to meaningfulness. Neither do we say X exists nor that it doesn’t exist. These are all descriptive concepts which arise when you think. But there is a basic before all these concepts, a very neutral experience, which very much resembles non thinking or nirvana. So its neither everything nor something nor nothing, nor true nor false nor meaningless nor meaningful.
I already said, “At that point, the human experience may simply be expressed by the one expression, X.”
Absolute monists believe that at the highest level of philosophical endeavour, there is no “statement”, other than “X”.
“X”.
Yea the above one. This is the highest level of experience when there is no two words. Its a experince at which only this unity will be experienced. It is at a second level of thought that we say X is the only ultimate reality. This approach we use to reach the highest level of only X. But when a monist realizes this highest level of thought, he doesn’t feel the necessity to use the second level anymore, he gets used to conceiving this unity. He may only use the second level thoughts then to invite others to this experience, people who may find it hard to understand at primary level. This ultimate “X” experience is the final realization of man and the ultimate philosophical endeavour. Even then man may lead his normal life and see and feel everything, but he will just know that at the highest level, its only, X, a perfect unity.
“If philosophy (metaphysics) indeed endeavors for the ultimate, then it is this final unity, X.”
Thus a true monist gets the ultimate and does not bother about the many individual concepts that the non-realised mind of the lower thought creates. Thus, relativity, non-relativity, continental, non-continental, empiricism, rationalism, analytical, non-analytical, realism, idealism, materialism, existentialism, and all other philosophies and religions like islam christianity judaism that arise from conceptual pluralism don’t matter to the monist, and are all answered and unified in the ultimate concept of X. If this is not realized, then the human mind will keep on creating concepts and arguements ad infinitum. Theres no end to it. Here the true monist even realises that in X, 1 and infinitum is one and the same, its all X (no scope for conceptual polarity again). So in the purer form of the absolute neutral monism that I preach, all philosophical problem is solved (as it seems, LOL). Its just a purified and reformed version of the regular absolute neutral monism and advaitism, with some corrections to the few problems that the monists used to face or wherein they themselves differed.
For contemporary modes of Monism, please google for Monism or Advaitism.
Here I should mention that the father of absolute Monism is not any Western philosopher or a charismatic monotheist, but an ancient Hindu Saint Shankaracharya. A lot of tributes to him.
In China, the traditional school of Taoism was monistic. Its ultimate reality was Tao, or The Way.
Monism of some sort also flourished among the Madhyana School of Buddhism, and in the Zen school.
Some western philosophers also professed some sort of monism, like Spinoza, though vaguely, and even then, not an absolute one. Its rather pantheistic, that God is everything, which is a statement consisting of multiple concepts or pluralism. An absolute monist sees neither God, nor Everything. He uses a single generalised concept called X to define the absolute ultimate reality. Its neither immanent nor transcendent, neither personal nor impersonal. (Its not panentheism because panentheists, though say the same thing that God is both transcendent and immanent, but they retain these qualities at the ultimate level, while the absolute monist has only X at the ultimate level.)
Shwami Vivekananda of India was one of the famous Monists of our age.
Btw, its only Monism that makes you de-emphasize the self and consider the unity of everything. Hence monism is a perfect solution to human morality, and almost always leads to saintliness and virtue in man. Every true monist, who understands what he believes thus would become somewhat of a saint.
Practically it explains the high comparative morality in the East, and even the moralities and spirituality that are in the West arose from monisting ideals, such as the unity of God or existence, unity of mankind etc.
If you want to ponder about it, just compare the pluralist Western Militant Wahabbite form of Islam, and the Sufi Spiritual form of Islam in the East which is monistic.
I’d like for you clarify your position on how this philosophy reflects on the rightful human life.
If there is only one “X”, and we are all a part of it, then how does pursuing and attempting to understand this “X” make us better or more “saintly”? Wouldn’t we already be a part of it regardless of our action on Earth?
Or do you propose that we are not naturally in tune with “X”, but only through training can we understand and appreciate its implications in the universe?
