Oneness/unity

[Wyrmfang]

This comes "a bit" late, but better now than never. I think this question deserves its own topic, to say the very least. The philosophy of oneness is the very core of the Star of Azazel, but as far as I remember, we haven´t ever discussed what does it exactly mean directly and explicitly, neither on this nor on the Finnish forum. That´s even quite bothering.

What is a philosophy of oneness?

Before I´ll present my own conception, I´ll let others speak. What is the meaning of "oneness"? What is its opposite? What´s good or bad in oneness?

[Insanus]

Oneness is a state of no contradiction, an idea that everything that exists is the whole. Not "a part of the whole", but the whole. It cannot really have an opposite, because the opposition could exist only within it, or even better as it. For this reason "oneness" is also simultaneously nothingness: because everything existing is the whole, the concept of "thing" is equal to "no-thing" for it has no relation to anything being a non-thing in the first place. "Separateness" is the relative or conditioned aspect of the whole which manifests the absolute through imperfection. Of course, as long as "oneness" and "separateness" are seen as separate, the attainment/understanding is not complete.

A bad interpretation of oneness could be that because contradiction exists only as the whole, any course of action is as good as any other course of action. That's true only for the abstract "the whole" & not for it's parts, because there are no "parts" in that interpretation there could be no contradiction either.

[Nefastos]

is the meaning of "oneness"?

In a philosophy of oneness it is holism, the all-encompassive nature of one's world view.

In a way, it's a philosophy that denies the possibility of unfathomable mystery, or more precisely, denies leaning to anything as unfathomable mystery. Thus it is necessarily an amalgam of Right Hand Path & Left Hand Path world views, since in the first ones a devotee can say: "I can't know the reason, but we are told it is so, & I choose to follow that path" & in the latter "I don't care what's the absolute reason, because it is enough for me that I choose to follow that path". To philosophy of oneness tries to reconcile these two in a way that both the side of otherness (in RHP) & one's self (in LHP) should be mended as one whole where both work in as perfect harmony as possible, neither enslaving the other.

What is its opposite?

For example, one of those views mentioned above: That there's duality in knowledge & action, or duality between ourselves and the others. The dualism can (and often does) also manifest as separating the matter & the spirit, or one's "lower" and "higher" self. The exoteric, common gnosticism is just this: It sees physical world as something separated from spirit, rather than a manifestation or an aspect of spirit. From that dualism spring all kinds of deep problems. Although there are two sides, the philosophy of oneness always considers them to be mutually dependent.

What´s good or bad in oneness?

As fra Insanus said, an easy mistake is to take it to mean that every action is as good, and there's no need for great personal striving after the best possible outcome. Such a view is spiritual sloth, and personal suffering is likely to help one awake & away from it sooner or later.

It is also clear that, because something exists at all, there is a certain cosmic need, so to say, for that blemish which (seemingly!) separates us from the great uncreation. If Absolute would be Absolute in perfect nothingness & we should try only to attain that pristine state of darkness, then the whole creation would be for vain. And how could that be that the perfect Absolute would have brought about something unnecessary? It's as irrational as to believe in personal God, the beneficent creator who at the same time makes possible all evil in the world. No, the world exists because there are other great things besides the path of returning: It's a spiral instead of a closed cycle, so in oneness there's also the great dynamic power of development. All these aspects of unity, both betterment, equilibrium and the need for giving oneself up for seeming destruction, should be seen as equally important, not overemphasizing any one of those.

That equilibrium part of the trinity also makes it necessary to consider how things might be related (or, as One) in ways we are not able to fathom in detail. For example, I think that modern science often errs thinking it can manipulate only one separate part of a certain system, while actually all parts are interconnected in ways that are not immediately self-evident, but which must be realized under more careful a study.

[Wyrmfang]

The best description to the idea of oneness I´m able to provide is moral ontology, the idea that morality is not ultimately about following some well defined principles but that existence itself is morally constituted. The essential idea of oneness is expressed in Levinas´ "face of the other". The other is never "altogether other". In the very idea of difference there has to be some background against which this difference is conceived. On the other hand, the very idea of oneness requires differences. Therefore, I think it is philosophically very naive to conceive oneness as everything blending into an inseparable lump, "night where all cows are black", as Hegel ironically put it. There are differences and even contradictions in oneness, it is grounded on difference.

In a sense dualism is the enemy of oneness, but it´s a kind of "good enemy". In the system classically referred as the most dualistic, Zoroastrianism, there is still "the void" uniting Angra Mainyu and Ahura Mazda. A proper monism requires a certain dualism within it. I think the most serious argument against oneness is rather pluralism; the idea that the ultimate structure of reality does not form any meaningful whole but everything simply varies endlessly.

[Jiva]

I've only seen Levinas' name mentioned a few times before and therefore don't know much about him, but he seems to be an influential figure for Derrida who I can talk about a bit. Basically, I'm wondering if your use of the word “difference” in your post was alluding to the Derridean différance? You seem to be talking about something that is almost transcendental, but not quite due to it defining the relationship between things rather than the things themselves. It's also quite ambiguous as it could either fit into either the monist or pluralist systems you mentioned as well as many others.

Actually, I was wondering how you view this in relation to the 'Understanding and Descriptions of Gnosis' thread, as although Kant's moral laws are innate, my understanding is that they manifest by human interaction based on reason through intermediary schemata. In other words: union between the human (knowledge) and the divine (gnosis) as an ideal, to put it in the most esoteric manner possible (I don't think Kant would've gone so far).

[Wyrmfang]

I've only seen Levinas' name mentioned a few times before and therefore don't know much about him, but he seems to be an influential figure for Derrida who I can talk about a bit. Basically, I'm wondering if your use of the word “difference” in your post was alluding to the Derridean différance?

I don´t know enough about Derrida to answer this, but possibly yes. I have the picture of Derrida that he mostly interpreted Heidegger´s insights in linguistic context. Heiddeger of course thought that the time of metaphysical systems has gone, and in sense I agree with him (and Derrida). If the idea of oneness is to be on lasting ground it has to be able to stand the anti-metaphysical tendencies of late modern philosophy; it can´t simply refute them and go back in time.

Actually, I was wondering how you view this in relation to the 'Understanding and Descriptions of Gnosis' thread, as although Kant's moral laws are innate, my understanding is that they manifest by human interaction based on reason through intermediary schemata. In other words: union between the human (knowledge) and the divine (gnosis) as an ideal, to put it in the most esoteric manner possible (I don't think Kant would've gone so far).

The moral law is not only innate but universal; not only humans but also God recognize it immediately (although for God the law does not appear as an imperative). Kant did not necessarily put it the best possible way, but the divine must clearly be present in morality (how else would there be any contact, even as an idea, between discursive human reason and God?). I think reason was just a bad choice of word for Kant when talking about morality (which Kant equated with following "pure practical reason", that is, practical reason independent of sensuous incentives). Levinas´ then put it explicitly that God is somehow present in the face of the other, that is, in moral recognition. The other is never "altogether other", it necessitates ethically (although the possibility of evil - denying this recognition - is of course an ever-present possibility). Morality is already ontological, and being itself must be conceived morally constituted.

Most readers are not familiar with modern philosophy, so again to put very shortly what I´m after: oneness must be present in action (conceived in a broad sense). It´s not work of oneness to declare a war between esoteric theory and modern science & philosophy (they have evidently deserved their place today if one takes the trouble of properly familiarizing himself with them) but to subordinate one´s theories under moral practice (and only then hope that others do so as well).

[Wyrmfang]

An old topic, but this came to my mind when I was reading Peter Dews´ Logics of Disintegration.

I've only seen Levinas' name mentioned a few times before and therefore don't know much about him, but he seems to be an influential figure for Derrida who I can talk about a bit. Basically, I'm wondering if your use of the word “difference” in your post was alluding to the Derridean différance?

As you know, my thinking springs largely from Kant and Schelling, and the idea of unity as unity of difference and unity is of Schellingian origin, and there is indeed a factual connection to Derrida. If Dews knows what he is talking (and I bet he does), Derrida studied Schelling carefully and took significant influences. He shared with Schelling the intention to go entirely beyond the traditional dualisms of philosophy, but while Schelling talked about this in terms of unity Derrida talked about différance. On the other hand, Dews argues that Derrida´s thinking can be shown to be inconsistent by the arguments of German idealists. These things are worked out in the chapter Différance and the Regress of Reflection in the aforementioned book.

By the way, I highly recommend this book to anyone who has a decent education in philosophy (mainly Kant, German idealism and post-idealists like Nietzsche and Heidegger) wants to understand something the cryptic French postmodernists of 60´s and 70´s. There are very few works where someone outside this tradition attempts to explicate the main ideas of Derrida, Deleuze, Foucault, Lyotard etc. Dews has a kind of distaste to postmodernism, but that of course doesn´t bother me since Dews is still quite fair and precise and I share his conviction that the big metaphysical questions cannot be thrown to the past.