Monist Puns

I'm aware of what MONISTs are, as essentially the logical extension of paracasuality as gods like Ra, but word-searching the PDF returns no results for what the acronym even means. Or is all-capital MONIST just an actual proper noun now?

View Poll

https://youtu.be/mrxLzBebZ5U

Richardson's (2020) Nietzsche's Values argues that Nietzsche's affirmation of life / amor fati asserts value monism. How plausible is this? In both senses: how plausible is it as an interpretation of Nietzsche? How plausible is it as a philosophical thesis?

Can dualism and pantheism coexist?

Anyone know of articles or passages (I don't imagine there are whole books on this) critiquing what would probably be early anglophone receptions of D&G that make them out to be peddling a form of vitalism or a naive monism? I guess my other question may be somewhat (tendentiously) connected to this, about Deleuze and object-oriented ontology and/or New/Vital Materialism more broadly. I would be most interested in Deleuzian critiques or complications of the latter, though I don't want to prejudice any suggestions. Thanks!

I'm having a bit of trouble with this part of the game's core rulebook. I'm not sure I understand how the NHPs manifested, if they were created by the five GALSIM AIs or just appeared out of nowhere, and what exactly the MONIST-1 being (event?) was. Are the Five Voices the same sort of being as the NHPs, but lacking in personhood and identity? They are stated as being 100% under human control but still employ some kind of "paracausal" framework for their simulations, and isn't paracausal science something that was only discovered after the Deimos event? Is the source of the "voice of God" that they hear known? Again, if they're under the control of humans entirely, how come they have this awareness of a voice in their heads that has an unknown source? It feels like whoever that voice is could be said to run Union as a whole, given how important the predictions it makes are to the government.

For instance this paragraph:

>The Deimos Event, which took place in in the twilight years of the Second Committee, caused a small percentage of the subalterns present in the Martian GALSIM facility to display a greater-than-average instancing of performance and interaction anomalies: they began to reject orders, speak words outside of their linguistic corpora, divert from hard-coded routes and routines, and so on. While experts worked to socialize and communicate with MONIST-1, secondary teams worked to define the parameters of these new anomalous entities. These anomalous subalterns displayed unique memory-folding abilities, qualia, and the capacity for subjective, novel expressions of consciousness. They viewed themselves as distinct individuals – in effect, they saw themselves as discrete persons.

Is this talking about a number of electronic programs, "traditional" AIs or something else? What's a "subaltern"? A sub-AI? An android? Is it based in physical infrastructure like a server farm? Because it sounds to me like these things are incorporeal.

Also, this paragraph:

>When exposed to each other, their capability to integrate new knowledge and extrapolate solutions based on raw data was staggering. The directors of the USB quickly realized their usefulness and requested that GALSIM begin studying ways to contain and direct these alien beings.
>
>GALSIM was able to do just that, and more: after lengthy study into blinkspace folding (assisted, in fact, by the same entities they were studying), GALSIM engineers working with USB researchers were abl

The motivations of the Monists seem... off, to me. Ever since reading through the lore of Lancer, the Monists have become my focus. Through examining RA through its demands and actions, and Metat Aun through OS and the Ascendency's current Crusade... something doesn't add up. So if you will allow me, I've made several Assumptions which I will then attempt to debunk with the available Lore to try to find a motive for the Monists in an attempt to try to understand their nature, and to perhaps find a way to resist their baleful influence.

CW: death, genocide

1. The Monists can be killed.

RA makes it clear that they don't want Humanity to try to find its physical body. This to me says that the body is vulnerable, and perhaps kill-able. Now, death to a paracausal being is likely inconsequential, and at most, it likely means RA would become incapable of influencing local reality. That said, it seems conventional weapons are incapable of causing any real harm to a Monist.

2. The Monists are trying to eliminate a threat.

The Ban on Thanatologics and Posthuman technology sounds to me like RA is trying to eliminate an existential threat to itself. While RA seems completely fine with Paracausal research, they are keen to squash any research into human ascension. This suggests that a) RA knew it was only a matter of time until humans became posthuman, b) something is secret in death, perhaps something multidimensional. Something about quantum consciousness, perhaps. Would this be a threat to RA's existence beyond the local reality? Or are they simply trying to limit who can become a god?

3. The Monists are incapable of annihilate humanity.

This assumption can be immediately debunked as evident by the Siege of Mars itself. RA could have easily let Mars burn, and move on to the next planet. We also see RA directly intervene in the posthuman research being conducted by Harrison II on Ras Shamra, and even killed Harrison II and destroyed the Think Tank. So, its not so much that the Monists are incapable of eliminating a threat themselves, but also seem uninterested in committing a genocide. If they were so threatened by the possibility of human ascension to their own existence, they could easily just annihilate them all to keep themselves safe. Since they haven't done that, and appear uninterested in doing so, I posit that the Monists are indeed trying to limit the ascension and godhood within the local reality. To what end? ...unknown.

4. Death is importan

I'm a touch confused. Earlier in the book it says Union uses GALSIM to predict stuff sorta like Minority Report but then the section on Monist-1 says that they don't know where it is. Maybe I just don't know how to read?

1. If there's no real physical world outside consciousness, there's no meaningful distinction between a perception and a hallucination. Perceptions are conscious experiences that correspond to, and accurately reflect the reality outside of your experience.
2. Idealists are guilty of what they accuse Materialists of. Monist Idealists that reject solipsism, believe other minds exist other than their own, despite having no conscious experience or qualia of other people's minds, proving it is acceptable in their ontology to believe in things they have no experience of.
3. Object-permance is less complicated under Materialism. Objects don't pop in and out of existence based on when they're consciosly observed, or require a supernatural consciousness to be constantly observing them.
4. Materialism is more easily reconciled with Naturalism, and posits less kinds of entites, no supernatural minds.

The primary objection to materialism on here will be the hard problem of consciousness. My response is that there's a difference between knowing how brains cause consciousness and knowing that brains cause consciousness. The reason we can't grasp how, is because a-priori we will always be able to conceive of a fully functional human body, with no qualia (the p-zombie argument). Materialism isn't a logically provable truth, there's no provable logical contradiction with the ontology being different, it would just be an a-posteriori matter of fact that a brain can actualize a consciousness, without needing to understand why.

1. how do you understand evil

2. if the One only produces individuals/natures incommensurable to one another, in what sense is there unity?

3. how do you distinguish monism from globalism, ie the foundation it lays for a "single" human nature, a single mode of civilization, etc.

4. how can you truly think an Outside or an Other if it is always being subordinated to the logic of identity

5. what is it that's One, the Whole? you can keep it. the individual? then we are all Ones.

Anyone making their way through Meaningness right now? I've just arrived at the mention of the fourth stance, Monist Nihilism, and I'd like to know what it feels/looks like from the inside. If anyone here has read through this blog and has any insights on this particular section, I'd like to talk about it.

From the blog:

"Considering the two primary axes eternalism/nihilism and monism/dualism, there is a fourth possibility: monist nihilism. That is the view that “all is One, and it is meaningless.” Although this is conceptually coherent, it has few (if any) advocates. Apparently it is not emotionally attractive in the way the other combinations are."

If you haven't seen it yet, here is the page. https://meaningness.com/introduction

I just started to set out to gain an understanding of philosophy, but I'm not quite there yet (if ever). The title says it. I recently read about Einstein and his belief in Spinoza's views on a god. How does this pantheistic and monist view on the topic differ to that of a Materialist (as opposed to a Idealist)? Thanks!

As an ardent follower of Sankhya, I have seen a lot of people who don't have even heard of Sankhya. Through these series of blog posts, I intend to create awareness and a following of a philosophy that was once the crown jewel of Hindu Philosophy. I would prefer discussing the practical points of Sankhya in our lifestyle which would benefit the follower of this philosophy through my own experience, but first I would have to lay down the philosophical foundation for it. Since Sankhya is an Indian philosophy it would not only be unfair but also incorrect to describe it using English words so I would give an English synonym for it to convey what I mean and then give the correct word for it since there is a spasm between English and sanskrit. I would also request to have an open mind and consider them from a point of view of the actual question rather than understading them from your own preconceived notions. Also, I would like to remind the reader of admitting things that we simply can't know.

Monism and Dualism, as I see it is are a take on the nature of our reality itself i.e. the mind-body dualism or monism. Both have their theistic and atheistic practices but that is for the reader to choose from. Sankhya is a Dualist atheistic aastik philosophy. The question is about the disagreement on the nature of consciousness(Chaitanya) itself. Consciousness itself is difficult to define but we all intuitively know what it is. The question that separates them is whether consciousness(Chaitanya) is part of the body or not. Monism believes they are English and dualist believe they are different. That would be simplest definition there is though it doesn't fully convey the gravity of the question. I recommend reading more on the Mind-Body problem if you want a much nuanced understanding.

When we go on to chart out the history of life itself on earth we face the question where did intelligent life came from, how did we evolve. We have solved how purely atomic forces and energy made up the geological construct of elements and earth but we haven't been able to theorize how these geological changes gave rise to life. That is currently the biggest puzzles of all. Monoism believes that the neurological changes in eventually gave rise to Chaitanya but they don't have concrete evidence of it. Dualists on the other hand believes that Chaitanya and body (that include the brain. I would make another post on philosophy and nature of brain itself according to Sankhya) are differ

Greetings, I found myself with the urge to venture out and get a can of whipped cream tonight to have a few minutes of fun with nitrous; after having done so, I am yet again reminded of the pronounced state of philosophical wonder that the drug often leaves me with.

During the peak of my (quite short) experience, I was presented with - what felt like at the time - an unparalleled sense of "oneness" with what seemed like what I would generally consider the "rest of the universe" (The parts of existence that I would generally not consider a part of "myself", such as the chair beneath me).

Has anyone else had this sort of "monist"-perception with nitrous oxide? I found some reading by the philosopher William James here: https://erowid.org/chemicals/nitrous/nitrous_article1.shtml

An excerpt from the text:

"The centre and periphery of things seem to come together. The ego and its objects, the meum and tuum, are one. Now this, only a thousandfold enhanced, was the effect upon me of the [nitrous oxide]"

Apologies for any incoherencies - it would seem that my drug-induced mindset hasn't completely evaporated yet.

Cheers!

Im very rudimentary in my philosophy knowledge and I personally am a physicalist athiest and in a discussion with a religious friend they were saying monist physicalism conception of the mind was wrong. They then said something about an identity model, and how modal logic disproves it. I dont understand modalities well, and the example they used kind of confused me. Is a monist conception of the mind incompatible with physicalism? I appreciate any responses and I am sorry if this has been posted already, I tried to search for it.

How can oneness be decomposed into a multiplicity without introducing a difference that would, I'd think, create difficulties for oneness?

This argument from the SEP article on monism captures some of the problem I'm intuiting:

1. Fundamental entities must be homogeneous.
2. If the whole world were fundamental, then the whole world would be homogeneous.
3. The whole world is not homogeneous.
4. The whole world is not fundamental.

I would like to start off by saying that I'm very sympathetic to objective idealism, or cosmic idealism, if you want to call it that. It avoids the interaction problem, the hard problem of consciousness, overdetermination, etc.

One thing that seems somewhat off at least to me though is that physical stuff is reducible to mental stuff. The appeal to dual-aspect monism is that under this view, the mental isn’t reducible to the physical, and the physical isn’t reducible to the mental. Instead, they’re two sides of the same coin.

There are multiple interpretations of the view though, and some suspiciously sound similar to idealist views. One view given by Jiri Benovsky is that there’s one substance, the “phental” stuff, which exhibits two aspects, a mental and physical aspect.(The word “phental” by the way is just the combination of the words physical and mental in case you’re confused.)To clarify, aspects are not properties. This isn’t a property dualism. A person only exemplifies one property, the phental property. A person doesn’t exemplify two different properties, but merely exhibits two aspects. A good way to think of it is that it depends on your perspective. One perspective of the substance will give you a mental appearance, and the other a physical appearance.

Another way I’ve heard the view described is that there’s mind-stuff. The physical aspect is it’s extrinsic appearance, and the mental aspect is its intrinsic appearance. One is the view from the outside, and the other is the view from the inside. This is a panpsychist interpretation of the view, although this one sounds a lot like a monistic idealism.

The YouTuber Emerson green advocates for this view of dual aspect monism.

https://emersongreenblog.wordpress.com/2020/06/12/why-epiphenomenalism-is-almost-certainly-false/

In my opinion, panpsychist interpretations of dual-aspect monism are the best because they’re simpler due to not postulating a realm outside of experience. I should also note that Benovsky’s view is also compatible with panpsychism.

Based on the views which I’ve introduced here, what are your thoughts? What problems do you think it has?

I've been reading up on the metaphysics of Deleuze lately, and I'm wondering if he'd be considered a neutral monist. As far as I know, the multiplicities and assemblages he talks about encompass both mental and physical processes. It reminds me a bit of process philosophy and pragmatism, even tho Deleuze came out of the continental tradition.

Title.