MultipleTentacles
16th September 2008, 01:54 PM
When one comes to a false conclusion of a universalist nature (i.e. to the effect of "I have just described the universe") the conclusion seems to fall on a scale between two poles. The two poles are:
1) False unity.
2) False peace.
False unity is the expression that everything is "natural" or that all actions are in a sense, acceptable. For example, it is now fashionable for some people to take refuge in chaos. They believe that chaos is the ultimate nature of the universe, and that all will return to chaos. This view is hypocritical because people have the thought "if only so-and-so or such-and-such would go away, or stop behaving a certain way, everything would return to 'normal', and we would go on living peacefully in chaos." Of course, this "solution" is a contradiction. False unity can be described as an essentially "liberal" doctrine -- a doctrine of letting people behave the way they're going to behave, and removing all obstacles of any type to hinder the way they are going to behave.
False peace is the idea of full and complete order and harmony. This is when one comes to the conclusion that if people simply gave up their hindrances, or their pride, and adopt their specific doctrine, a utopia will ensue, and everyone will live in perfect peace and harmony. This "peace" would in fact be a "false peace," because it assumes one controlling ideal at the expense of other ideals that come from other perspectives. While the false unity is additive (i.e. it grabs at everything and calls it "unity"), false peace is eliminative (i.e. it throws away hindrances). It assumes that a "hindrance" is really an opposition to one's own specific doctrine. This view assumes too much. It falls on the conservative end of the scale.
It seems to me that when philosophizing, one has the potential to fall into one of these extremes. I think when you something like this in your brain, the proper response is to say "Oooh, pretty!" while letting it go without adopting it, seeing if it has any good qualities and following the good qualities.
For example, I have often had the thought, "if everyone just used the internet to communicate about philosophy, then the world would become enlightened quicker." This could lead to a "false unity" philosophy, in effect making everyone slaves to the internet. So, I have to check myself and not become attached to the internet, or to the idea of everybody using it for this purpose. (It is especially good to not be attached to the internet since big Telcos may ruin it for Americans like me if Network Neutrality fails to pass congress.)
1) False unity.
2) False peace.
False unity is the expression that everything is "natural" or that all actions are in a sense, acceptable. For example, it is now fashionable for some people to take refuge in chaos. They believe that chaos is the ultimate nature of the universe, and that all will return to chaos. This view is hypocritical because people have the thought "if only so-and-so or such-and-such would go away, or stop behaving a certain way, everything would return to 'normal', and we would go on living peacefully in chaos." Of course, this "solution" is a contradiction. False unity can be described as an essentially "liberal" doctrine -- a doctrine of letting people behave the way they're going to behave, and removing all obstacles of any type to hinder the way they are going to behave.
False peace is the idea of full and complete order and harmony. This is when one comes to the conclusion that if people simply gave up their hindrances, or their pride, and adopt their specific doctrine, a utopia will ensue, and everyone will live in perfect peace and harmony. This "peace" would in fact be a "false peace," because it assumes one controlling ideal at the expense of other ideals that come from other perspectives. While the false unity is additive (i.e. it grabs at everything and calls it "unity"), false peace is eliminative (i.e. it throws away hindrances). It assumes that a "hindrance" is really an opposition to one's own specific doctrine. This view assumes too much. It falls on the conservative end of the scale.
It seems to me that when philosophizing, one has the potential to fall into one of these extremes. I think when you something like this in your brain, the proper response is to say "Oooh, pretty!" while letting it go without adopting it, seeing if it has any good qualities and following the good qualities.
For example, I have often had the thought, "if everyone just used the internet to communicate about philosophy, then the world would become enlightened quicker." This could lead to a "false unity" philosophy, in effect making everyone slaves to the internet. So, I have to check myself and not become attached to the internet, or to the idea of everybody using it for this purpose. (It is especially good to not be attached to the internet since big Telcos may ruin it for Americans like me if Network Neutrality fails to pass congress.)