Authentic monism proposes ‘ONE without a second.’
To wit: ‘ONE waits.’
All seconds emerge as modes of (the) ONE.
Hence: “This is THAT.”
Pseudo monism proposes ‘One selected second as the ONE.
Hence: ‘This particular one is this selected That.’
© 2020 by Victor Langheld
Authentic monism proposes1 ‘ONE2 without a second3.’
To wit: ‘ONE waits.’4
All seconds emerge as modes of (the) ONE.5,6
Hence: “This is THAT.”7
Pseudo monism8 proposes ‘One selected second9 as the ONE.
Hence: ‘This particular one is this particular THAT.’10,11
© 2020 by Victor Langheld
1. The proposal derives from a reductionist thought experiment.
2. Hereafter also called ‘THAT’. ‘One’ (or THAT) might be imagined as ‘one-down’ or substrate (or sub-stance), hence as platform for ‘one-up’ (or stance), i.e. the second (or secondary) as emergent. In the ancient Upanishads of India the substrate of emergents (i.e. the ‘one up’) , i.e. the ONE or THAT, was called nirguna (i.e. without attributes = difference qua modes) Brahman. The emerged (i.e. as ’one-up’ = stance) as self-application (as product), i.e. ‘This’, was called the saguna (i.e. with attributes = difference) Brahman. In medieval Europe the active substrate (i.e. as procedure) was referred to (already by Aquinas) as (natura) naturans and its emergents (natura) naturata. Spinoza called the substrate of self-emergence substance and its emergent, as substance modification, ‘mode.’ In the 21st century the platform of self-emergence is interpreted to mean basic procedure (i.e. as active series of constraints).and its emergent differently constrained application (or simply ‘local app).
3. Hereafter also called ‘This’. ’This’ refers to each and every emergent that is real and identifiable. ‘This’ emerges as ended, hence defined THAT.
4. Therefore ‘is not’, i.e. does not present because lacking identifiable realness. THAT ‘is not’, i.e. does not emerge because waiting to be activated by contact (i.e. disturbance, turbulence and so on) the sine qua non of emergence. Even when activated THAT, applying itself as step-by-step (thus quantised) procedure, does not appear. Only the procedure’s repeating trace (i.e. its secondary naturata) appears.
5. The ‘one-up’ second emerges as transformation or mode of its one-down platform. From the point of view of ‘one-up’, ‘one-down’ ‘waits as unreal and unidentifiable’, to wit, as ineffable. Pseudo monotheists claim that the second emerges as incomplete mode (or theophany) of their ‘one up’ God.
6. See the Katha Upanishad, viz. “etad vai tat” = ‘This is THAT’ whereby neither ‘this’ nor ‘THAT’ are qualified. It’s simple to grasp. If THAT is imagined as an infinite ocean then ‘this’ emerges as a wave (or wave interference pattern, ‘warts and all’) and which is not different from the ocean. This is authentic Advaita Vedanta.
7. That is to say, ‘warts and all.’ For ‘warts’ read: systems failure (i.e. sin, evil), including impermanence, decay, mortality and the indicators of system failure, namely suffering, pain, misery and so on. In other words, ‘warts’ refers to the unappealing (because sorrowful decay side (or downwards slope) of a wave. Christian pseudo-monotheists reserved the ‘warts’ for the human (i.e. Adam). Ancient Buddhists claimed that life itself was a wart because transient, hence subject to decay.
8. Also proposed (with authentic monism) in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, pseudo-monism serves to disguise dualism. Pseudo-monism refers to the saguna (hence secondary, because with attributes) Brahman. In this regard see Shankara’s comment on Brihadaranyaka 1:4:10 where he states (ff): “Brahman here must be the conditioned (i.e. saguna) Brahman.” See also Brihadaranyaka 1:4:8 where it (i.e. pseudo-advaita (or monism) says: “He entered in here even to the tips of the nails, etc.” and which suggests dualist understanding. The authentic monist states otherwise, namely that Brahman (i.e. as ‘growth’ procedure) ‘does not enter into’ but ‘self-modifies or self-transforms’ as, hence is not different from (hence is same as) the nail. In this regard see Chandogya 3:14:3 ff: “Verily, this whole world (warts and all?) is Brahman.”
9. i.e. excluding the warts. In Genesis 1,2,3, composed long after the ancient law books, the barbarian Jewish God’s warts were transferred to the human. In Christianity the warts had disappeared altogether and their God was wholly good.
10. Whereas authentic monism is apolitical, pseudo monism has political function offering upgraded local control, upheld by punishment and reward, and liberation.
11. The Brihadaranyaka Upanishad suggests (idem Shankara) that Brahman serves as universal (indeed infinite) controller whereas atman, abiding in the cave of the heart, serves as personal (indeed local) controller and that atman and Brahman identical. That leaves the controlled (i.e. the not selected as controllers) which is assumed (though not discussed) to be neither Brahman nor atman, hence neti-neti. Under the guise of advaita (indeed pseudo monism) the Upanishad and Shankara appear to propose a dualistic system, whereby the controlled (i.e. whatever is not ‘in the cave of the heart’) needs to be eliminated (i.e. via austerities, i.e. Yoga) to achieve one-ness with Brahman/Atman and thereby liberation. Authentic monism proposes that Brahman (i.e. a\s emergence procedure) simply served as controlling (or constraining) procedure whenever or wherever an ordered emergent has appeared (in fact continues to appear). And moreover that the controlling (or constraining) procedure happens as reaction to turbulence, i.e. random momentum = energy. And that the controlling procedure (i.e. Brahman), like its self = atman controlled emergent, is discontinuous, i.e. digitised or quantised.