Good, Evil and Panentheism

[Neo-Scholastic]

Yeah! My Jedi Sentinel made level 17.

You know, you could have really made the definition of god very simple, but you chose to include fancy sounding words which seem to suggest intent at later subversion. You said god was "all" i.e. everything in the universe and beyond. Why not leave it at that?

'Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity.' I'm 46 years old and I haven't had anyone to talk with about philosophy since college. My learning has been piecemeal and I've picked-up a lot of language from so many sources I'm afraid I might have created my own private nomenclature. Ironic because I've been trying very hard to translate the terms from a large variety of sources into a common vocabulary. I seem to have failed miserably. Thanks for your patience.

How is ideal form different than non-ideal form and why isn't it a part of god?...

Perhaps the word 'ideal' carries too much baggage and I should avoid it.

Why is primal matter a part of god and not secondary matter?

Because Primal Matter is universal. Secondary substances are particular and local.

...Why is primal matter good?

Because it represents the pure will. "Nothing is good except the good will." - Kant. "Why do you call me good. No one is good save the Father who is in Heaven" - JC

...and if secondary matter comes from primal matter, how can it not be good as well?...

Because at scales greater that the primal, substances are composite and cease to have the purity of will. Since they lack complete purity they form and dissolve. Only Primal Matter endures. Imagine the power of will in the Green Lantern. Will serves as the substance that manifests itself according to the various forms imagined by Hal Jordan. In my philosophy there is no Hal Jordan. Will is an inherent part of substance, the fundamental striving of the universal to be.

...Why do you refer the form to be true?

Because it is the ultimate and complete unity of all things. Its perfect unity is the basis for judging the integrity of lesser forms. I use 'true' in the same way as oldie songs do when they talk about 'true love'. Or like when we say a 2x4 is 'true' because it is straight and dimensionally stable. All of reality is 'true' because it is the unltimate expression of a whole.

Mostly fine except for the last part. As you say here, the objective reality (corresponding to the physical) does not need a sentient being. The subjective reality (corresponding to formal) does.

Perhaps this way of differenciating objective from subjective isn't serving us well.This may be an area of 'recklessness' on my part.

Now, not everything that is a part of objective reality is perceptible (even if everything perceptible is a part of objective reality) - which means, not every substance has a form.

To use the classic example, the unobserved tree in the forest has a substance (wood) and a form (the configuration of its trunk, branches, etc.) Maybe I'm not following you correctly. If you could give me an example of something that has a form but no substance, it might help me undestand.

Further, subjective reality requires experience - not perception and not every experience can be perceived. So, not every form has a substance.

I see subjective experience going all the way down to the smallest scales of reality. High order mental experiences like self-awareness and memory only occur at the everyday scale. These are built from lesser mental phenomena that occur even down to, say, electrons. In pan-psychicism, even electrons, while certainly not self-aware, still have an infinitesmal 'spark' of qualia with it. Admittedly, How a basic unit of qualia can generate multiple types of experiences is an open question until I can first provide a basis for experience itself.

...primal matter would be substantive and "the good" or "love" would be formal. So, I guess you are trying to say that "good" and "love" are forms of the primal substance.

That's not what I'm saying. I use love to describe the inherent will conjoin and make harmonious forms. Lovers desire to live as a couple in harmony. We love our country when we seek to make society more ordered and beneficial to all. Love, as Will, adopts and fills out form.

...use of "The Good" here, bears no resemblance to meaning of the word "good".

The word good has built in ambiguity that I hoped to dispell by talking about goodwill, virtues, etc.For example, a good as a thing in itself, as in "Have you got the goods?"
Or as an adjective. "This a is good steak." (where steak is the form taken by good) Or as a desired end. "I only wanted to do good."

...With your "proto-consciousness" argument, you have contradicted your earlier statements. Firstly, if it was a part of reality and perceptible (by your statement that it becomes apparent) , then it would be self-evident. It is not. Consciousness does not equal sentience - proto-consciousness would be less so. Therefore, your problem of everything having formal attribute (which are formed due to sentience) would not be solved.

Conscious self-awareness and sentience are aggregates made from smaller and smaller units of 'subjective experience'. Proto-consciousness monads are the fundantal qualia out of which the aggregate 'experiences' are created.

....while the things in objective reality are always consistent and rational, those within subjective reality can be irrational and self-contradictory. If your ideal form is everything a subjective reality may contain, then it automatically includes self-contradictions, paradoxes and self-refutations - thereby making it by definition, not completely true.

Partially correct. Things in objective reality may be incomplete and corrupted, like a bent 2x4 or muddy water. Likewise, subjective reality is irrational and delusional when its form lacks integrity and harmony with the larger reality.