Neotheology PDF Download

Reality appears dualistic from a logical standpoint. Monism is the picking of one side of the issue as real and the other an illusion. Neomonism is the stance that the answer is not to be found in one or the other but in a nondualistic stance that is a paradoxical unity. I submit there is great confusion over the concept of one. There is the mathematical understanding of one as singular or exclusive and there is the metaphysical understanding of one as manifold or inclusive. Mathematical oneness comes from the language of the mind and metaphysical oneness comes from the language of the heart. This confusion is apparent when we talk about the oneness of -O- (My spelling of the word God.) as we assume a mathematical one that is separate while we are discussing a metaphysical one that is unity. It is true that -O- is one in the mathematical sense of the term, but it is also true that -O- is one in the metaphysical sense of the term. -O- is singular in that there is nothing but -O- and at the same time -O- is unity for the same reason. -O- is not a separate one nor separate manys for the one contains the many while the many contain the one. One of the biggest problems with using the mathematical concept when discussing Metaphysical issues is the idea of separate entities. -O- is separate from Nature. Man is separate from Nature. -O- is separate from Man. These separations are true only in a logical sense for one cannot separate one from the other in an existential sense. The Biblical and Science Literalists are equally hubristic by acting as if they have the authority speak for all of us on these issue of Science vs. Religion. It seems to me this is a false dichotomy with equally unreasonable choices. I find it somewhat amusing to listen to the arguments between the two camps as these people make idols out of images in their attempt to force all people to accept one or the other of the campfire stories as Truth. The Bibleist says only X is true while the Materialist says only Y is true and both fail to realize their respective images are irrelevant when it comes to Reality, which is at least A through Z. Perhaps the most hubristic is this assertion that in order to be considered a -O-image, the qualifier that it must be a being with volition and intent is included. To a Taoist, the concept of the Tao has the same function as the concept of God does to a Christian; why is one a -O-image and the other not? It does not follow that if some parts of one -O-image are shown to be mistaken from a Scientific P.O.V., that all -O-images are thereby invalid for the same reasons. Although they are two aspects of the same enterprise (the understanding of Reality), they occupy different functions in life. Religion is in the sphere of the Intuitive while Science is in the sphere of the Rational. This is why traditional monism misses the point; the One is not a choice between two sides of an issue. Unity is a Reality that encompasses Is and Is Not. We act as if our dictionary daffynitions are the only valid ones, which is certainly not the case, for neither the Biblical nor the Scietheistic images cover the entirety of the Reality. One does not have to give up the idea of -O- just because scientific evidence shows the universe to be self-generating. It seems a bit absurd to me that our Worldview be based on either one or the other when neither option fills the bill by itself. Neomonism questions the assumption of separateness as a fundamental truth. There may be a dichotomy between mind and matter, for example, but is the dichotomy logical or existential? Some take the stance of mind only as reality, some take the body only stance; each mistakes a logical paradox for an existential state of reality. Without body, as we understand it, we would not have mind, as we understand it. Mind only is a partial answer, body only is a partial answer. That any one particular answer is a partial answer does not mean it is a false answer, me