Good, Evil and Panentheism

[genkaus]

'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.

I usually try not to give the benefit of the doubt, but in this case I'll make an exception.

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

Yes, but how are they separated form the primal matter? If primal matter is universal, then all "secondary" matter is also a part of it - therefore a part of god.

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

Firstly - justify that it does represent will.
Secondly - justify that that will is "good". All your quotes show is that JC's father has good will (IF we accept the validity of the statements - which I don't). It does not conclude that primal matter is good - nor does it say anything about god.

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.

Firstly, you are not making much sense here.
Secondly, equating primary matter with pure will is incorrect, because -according to your metaphysics - will would be a part of subjective reality and matter (primal or otherwise) would be part of the objective one that exists independent of any consciousness or will. In which case, your attempts to tie will to primal matter are incorrect.

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.

No, not all things. Remember - the form belongs to the formal reality which by definition excludes physical reality. Therefore, it cannot be completely true.

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.

In your example - the configuration or the pattern does not exist unless observed.

For example, I have the concept of a Balrog in my head. That concept has a form (by definition), but no substance since there is no such thing as a Balrog. And no, the neural arrangement in my brain that forms the concept is not the substance, because you may have the same concept, but your substance would be completely different.

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.

I guess this belief lies at the root of your error. Any experience first requires capacity for awareness - that is, capacity for perception. What we know is that perception requires a certain level of complex mechanism in place - even if it is as rudimentary as a sunflower turning towards the sun. What you are claiming with your pan-psychicism is perception is possible without the mechanism - which is an untenable position, both philosophically and scientifically, since a) it contradicts your earlier position of consciousness-independence of reality and b) there is no evidence to suggest it.

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.

Disregarding the gross redefinition of the word "love", it brings us back to the previous objection - problem with the inherent will of the primal matter.

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."

The first example is invalid - the "goods" there refer to commodities. That has nothing to do with "Good" or moral "good".

Secondly, I believe I resolved any ambiguity when I defied good as a judgement (a formal attribute) assigned to a substance according to a set of rules. So, in your second example, the judgment is taking place according to the rules about how a steak should be cooked (in my case - rare, juicy and stuffed with chicken).

The third one, ofcourse, refers to rules set by morality.

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.

That does not solve the problem unless the proto-consicousness monads are capable of experience as well. In which case refer to the point regarding perception.

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.

Un-huh. Completeness and corruption are formal attributes assigned on basis of other concepts, not on basis of objective reality. That is we have a concept of what 2x4 should be like and we have a concept of how water should be. We judge them by these conceptual standards and declare them incomplete or corrupted, but by objective standards they are nothing of the sort.