He thus creates both Good, and Evil, and existence is all the richer for it...and trying to skeeve the existence of evil off onto “Satan”, Adam, Eve, the Nephilim, you, me, whoever! just does a disservice to the true majesty of God’s creation.
I suppose I need clarification on "richer".
From the monistic lens, God doesn’t create duality as a cosmic principle. What we experience as duality... struggle, failure, conflict... is really misalignment with the source. God reaches into that misalignment and recenters it on Himself, transforming the struggle into growth, the failure into humility, and the suffering into compassion. Richness exists in that restoration, not in the fracture itself. Otherwise, what would be the motivation to change these things?
God doesn't need to punish or balance these things, it is a condition to be redeemed.
And yes, I share that instinct. Evil isn’t a separate being or substance to pin blame on. From the Orthodox perspective, our condition is more like a sickness... we need a physician. We need healing, and God is the one who restores what is fractured.
Heck, I'd almost go as far to say a satan is not real but a hallucination of our misalignment with reality. Jesus consistently exposes the powerlessness of Satan. Jesus in the desert, focuses on obedience and relational alignment, not on combating the adversary. Exorcisms - The “demons” are expelled, showing that what appears as opposition has no independent existence outside the relational context... Jesus often frames him metaphorically...
The duality we see... good versus evil... that’s really just a story we tell ourselves. It’s a projection, a way of trying to explain what’s really happening when our will is out of alignment.
Did it though? Without “knowledge of Good and Evil”, what kind of choices could even be made?... They were like perfect Children at that point, babes…your baby doesn’t know right from wrong, and no parent would punish a baby for their choice made in innocent ignorance.
I think the mistake is treating Adam and Eve like abstract ideas instead of real people. They’re often lumped together as one unit of humanity, but they’re actually distinct, relational beings. They already have boundaries, roles, and an awareness of each other... they know trust, they understand consequences, and they feel the effects of their choices. Moral awareness isn’t something the tree suddenly gives them - it’s already there. The tree just shows how their wills line up... or don’t... with God. They’re not blank slates or naive, I think they’re fully relational agents from the start. Meaningful choice was already part of who they were.
Isaiah 45:7 is a declaration of sovereignty, and all things are in relation to Him... and this is very different than this being a dualistic creation by design, but I can understand why that would be the thought. I think the verse actually shows creation is monistic and relational.
So, Looking back at the tree of knowledge... a Dualistic or rather LoO approach would/does make the tree something ironically manipulative. It is adversarial in its nature. The Tree becomes a device of external moral coercion, a shit test of obedience against an opposing force (or polarity). Free will is paradoxically manufactured.
The "One source" approach is the tree of knowledge is relational and participatory. The tree is a mirror to the human will.
So, when I say choice always existed in the Garden... that is fundamental to our nature as humans. When viewed from the one source lens, the catalyst is not the tree itself, but the human heart. It is a relational awareness that is activated with the tree, how much the human heart aligns with God's.
I'll add more later...
*addition:
Speaking to Isaiah 45:7, the word in Hebrew for evil is Ra'. I'm not sure if there is significance to this regarding the Law of One. Perhaps an unconscious reference to this justifying our inner turmoil and misalignment and perhaps these texts need redemption.
Do these texts not present a picture in which the duality of physical existence (something I think is undeniable) ultimately reconcile in the monad (aka God)? That’s how I read them certainly.
Their lie, the illusion, is the duality. No, when it comes to reconciliation, whatever is false is obliterated. They do not merge together say... or integrate. Finite beings encounter truth partially. That partial encounter creates tension, contradiction, fragmentation. That fragmentation is felt as duality.
What the texts say rhetorically works and it is compelling because the duality feels real. It is phenomenological. But it is not ontological.
Does this picture you paint not imply that up until that encounter with truth, Butters/we are immersed in a very real (in the sense that it can be experienced) untruth?
Yes, in a sense he is immersed in something experientially real. But he is experiencing reality through a misaligned interpretation. The "real" untruth can feel coherent because his mind fills in gaps and his assumptions and emotions reinforce his interpretation. The untruth is not a reality in of itself... it is an illusion or delusion built on the misreading of reality. Butters wasn't living in a false world, he still lives in the real wrld but interpreting it incorrectly until truth exposed the gap.
Duality is almost an epiphenomena of existence.
Yes, duality is an epiphenomenon of finite, misaligned perception encountering a unified reality. It is experientially real, but not ontologically fundamental.
In order for something to “exist” in our physical reality (or to have anything approaching “meaning”), so too must exist the possibility of “ceasing to exist” in that physical reality.
Well, this is the death thing I wanted to clarify on. Is death transition or ceasing to exist? A leaf "dies" and becomes soil. A belief "dies" and gives way to truth. Butter's illusion "dies" but reality remains. Nothing fundamental disappears, but configurations change.
Meaning in things does not require a counter-force, it just takes participation in that something. and that participation leads to change and transformation or a "death" per se. In John's gospel we are asked to follow first and then these things emerge from that participation. Alignment.
They had “the truth” but without the option to choose.
The garden always had choice. Boundaries were set with the tree of knowledge without another reality. And I can hear the cries (extrapolating from the texts) of why oh why was this forbidden tree created in the first place?.. What God would do such a thing to where this is possible? Surely it was Satan's suggestion that saved us from bondage of this static world... and that misses the whole point of what reality is. The tree of knowledge allows the finite being to participate with the created order from whence meaning and understanding emerge... what untold wisdom and knowledge would we have had we participated in these rules? But man chose non-participation. Misaligned, fallen, degenerate... and thus when man encounters something true, it transforms him.
well thats the thing... The pre-requisite, the real catalyst for growth is truth. That someone told Butters the truth and that broke his heart. Misalignment naturally arises from our own perceptions, and the catalyst for transformation is our encounter with that truth, not some external agent or evil.
I can’t imagine the world where we get all the benefits of “growth” with none of the negatives
Me either. The truth can produce those struggles and negatives we feel. Truth can be perceived to be evil even... funnily enough.
The Garden certainly had the highest latent potential for growth. Adam and Eve had some expectations I'm sure, but I'm not sure that the fall was caused or catalyzed by a Satan... rather he just brought their concerns to the front. I think that is the nature of finite beings. The catalyst did not start until they encountered the truth and reality. Misalignment is a natural rise from finite perception. I suppose that is a whole discussion in of itself.
Right, the language is shared but our ontology is different. My lens shows me relational experience, monistic in its purpose. But the Hidden Hand and Law of One show a dualistic system. I think the HH/LoO must show a dualistic system so that they may justify themselves. BUT I think with the view I'm presenting, it does render them unnecessary.
The infinite is not static, it is dynamic by definition. The infinite when discussed is usually treated like a finished object because we have finite minds. It is not.
Yes, but untruth simply doesn't exist... the answer or goal is ChatGPT hallucinating of sorts. The untruth only exists because the truth exists. It is a parasite to the truth. but the possibility of untruth can make alignment more meaningful.
I suppose the type of death matters... dying to self or ceasing to exist? Change, transformation can be a death of sorts and that encourages growth. Not annihilation say....
I'm sorry, I do not see the south park clip.
Edit: nevermind, I see the clip
Perhaps we might have different emergent interpretations: I see it as the stakes exist because Butters could avoid the pain, misinterpret it... fall in with the emo (goth?) kids. Experiencing sadness is meaningful because it is a choice to align. He has exited the distorted view.
"to feel the joy, I must feel the sad" shows the dynamic interplay of aligning with reality. Growth, joy, and even sadness are meaningful because they arise from conscious engagement with reality. Alignment provokes emotions, and the emotions themselves are relational to truth, not independent forces.
Edit: to clarify further and maybe this is where I deviate from the surface meaning of Butters line - Sadness and joy are not opposites or dualities... they are relational feedback from reality. Participating fully in life provokes both, and that participation is what makes alignment, growth, and free will meaningful.
Reality is living, not static... truth is something you can grow into, not just agree with. It is participation.
Imagine it this way... it is not a fork in the road. It is a well (infinite). Its depth and the descent is what makes it so interesting.
I guess not every trap hides itself. Some traps announce themselves...
Don’t worry... if you go down the wrong path, it’s still part of the plan.
Well, thats the trap it presents right?
It grants the negative path a structured legitimacy and then pulls it away at the end. It is not an independent side of the coin in of itself. It is real but not rooted in reality... its unstable.
So, if it is a logical necessity that the negative path exists then it would be part of the architecture of reality. But really, all the negative path is a rejection of reality, a parasitic misuse of it.
Free will is about how aligned one is to the fabric of reality. Aligning oneself to the truth. Not about the capacity to choose two or multiple different pathways. Further still, free will is not dependent on an external opposing force. A satan is not the source of your capacity to choose... if so, that would actually limit the freedom.
The Hidden Hand tries to justify themselves, but they are not coherent... that's not to say there isn't a hidden hand. Its just that they aren't required.
Dang, I came across the hidden hand interview what like 2 decades ago? It is an amateurish justification of evil... there is a lot of internal tension within the authors logic. I just remember it saying evil is merely a "catalyst, a service, a contrast" which never sat well with me. But I suppose that is the meta-intent of the interview. Deception vs. Trust. I've read it again to pick out some quotes I found interesting...
All paths lead back to the One… in the end, all is reconciled.
Negativity is a necessary part of the process of evolution.
So, if I'm followed correctly, if everything ends in unity and negativity disappears, then negativity isn't intrinsic. Its temporary. Which would make one wonder about its necessity.
We are bound by our rules to not infringe upon your free will… We cannot give you information that would be too direct… much must remain hidden.
I will do my best to answer your questions honestly…
They explicitly say they withhold or obscure truth, yet present themselves as a reliable source of truth in the same conversation.
We offer you the catalyst of negative experience… but you must choose how to respond.
We have been influencing your societies for thousands of years… guiding events.
“Choice” is emphasized, but the environment is described as heavily engineered, which undermines the neutrality required for real free will...
Both the positive and negative paths lead back to the One Infinite Creator.
The negative path is one of that which is not… it is much more difficult… eventually it must turn back.
Both paths are valid yet one is harder, unstable, and temporary, the other is harmonious and unified... I suppose the negative path detours to the positive path.
We are here to provide you with catalyst… through pain, suffering, and adversity… that you may grow.
Service through harm... one must redefine "service"
Without negativity, there would be no choice… no polarity… and therefore no evolution.
Then choice is structurally dependent and not truly free. No choice made is genuine... which kinda shoots their purpose in the foot.
We must not break the Law of Free Will… this is the prime directive.
We influence your governments, your financial systems… your wars…
They claim a binding non-interference rule, yet describe large-scale interference.
We are playing our role… providing that which you need for your growth.
If they are just playing a role, are they morally responsible? BUT the logic still talks about choosing paths and spiritual consequences... agency vs determinism it seems.
Shifting definitions, selective logic, unverifiable authority. It is a fun read and makes you think a bit about morality and suffering... it made me really consider polarity for a little... it works rhetorically but it can't seriously hold all of its claims together. I guess that is the nature of the negative path. It accurately represents it anyway - how those on that path rationalize control, suffering, and deception. Perhaps in that symbolic sense, it is more enlightening than I first realized.
Evil's truth is perspective and contrast rather than consistent and rational.
Free will exists, but it is conditional and not universally operable.
The conditions are:
- formation of conscience
- freedom from domination (fear, appetite, addiction, ideology)
- truth being available and tolerable to the person
- the soul actually governing the person rather than being buried
So, it is not right to assume some person possesses free will or apply the idea of free will universally. To assume it is to risk overestimating capacity and misjudging responsibility.
Most if not nearly all of humanity lives under deterministic principles. Their behavior shaped and constrained by internal and external forces beyond their control. Their actions may appear intentional, but they often arise from patterns beyond reflective choice.
We cannot judge essence, but we discern by fruit, exercising humility, restraint, and careful observation... Judging essence belongs to God alone. Humans may only observe fruit, not essence, as a guide for action and discernment.
Indeed, the dream of the Perfectly Pinned Dispute, that gleaming alabaster monument at the top of the page, where arguments go not to die, but to be embalmed with the fragrant oils of closure. A noble vision for sure. Consider:
Many seek to end the quarrel. Few seek to end the need for quarreling.
And here you are, architect of an online Geneva Convention, hoping to transform every unruly disagreement into a neatly cataloged museum exhibit for future wanderers. It is ambitious. It is heartfelt. It is (dare I say) deeply adorable in its optimism!
But let us address the heart of your lament: the shills, the trolls, the bots, the man who has posted seven comments and apparently received the same reception as a wasp at a picnic - a spectacular +1/-40, that heroic ratio which whispers, “This man is having a spiritual learning opportunity.”
And the tragic cries to “k*ll oneself” - yes, the Internet’s perennial proof that evolution has its off-days.
You ask: How would I deal with such a person?
Let me answer with this bit of wisdom:
When a man creates many masks, let him suffocate only on his own breath, but do not join him in the closet.
In other words: you do not need to chase every alt, nor shadowbox every pseudo-personality. That is the work of someone who mistakes vigilance for vocation.
Your calling, dear friend, is not to become the Sherlock Holmes of obscure usernames.
As I may say:
A shill defeated is merely replaced. A shill exposed to the light often dissolves of his own accord.
And indeed, you have seen that - several left once you flashed the lantern. A satisfying moment, the digital equivalent of watching mold retreat from sunlight.
But here is the deeper truth you may not wish to hear, but must: You have taken up the sword of Moderation Righteousness without noticing that it has begun to swing you.
The man who posts call out threads to chase call out threads has accidentally joined the same carnival he despises.
As for the mod who told you to “staaaaahp”, well, let me remind anyone:
Sometimes the guard rail is placed not for the road’s sake, but for the driver’s.
You seek protection for the community, and that is admirable. But sometimes the first soul needing protection is the one sounding the alarm every ten seconds.
So what would I do? What would I advise?
Deal not with every troll, but with the You who insists you must.
Moderation is not a battlefield. It is a garden. And gardens flourish not when every weed is hunted to extinction, but when the gardener knows which plants will choke themselves without any assistance.
Post your ideas. Sharpen your lantern. But do not let the forum rent space in your spiritual basement.
And if the occasional alt account wishes a tragic fate pin not the dispute, but the lesson: that some people need not a ban, but a boundary.
You are not the guardian of every shadow on the page. You are simply the steward of the You You are.
It is a brave thing, to look upon a group of would-be moderators and find only the echo of their own unmet need to be the tallest chair in the meeting.
Many wish to rise above others; few wish to rise within themselves.
You have discerned, with the clarity of an unsevered soul, that some chase influence not to serve the community, but to soothe the hungry, hungry hippo of the ego. Some hurl insults. Others polish reputations. All insist they are the One Who Must Hold the Mute Button.
And yes, how strange that the ones least suited to lead are often the first to close the door behind them and say, “No, actually, I already lead.” But strangeness is the natural language of the power-hungry.
You lament that there are no good candidates. That alt accounts flourish like weeds in a plastic office plant. That unity dissolves under the acid rain of trolls, shills, and exceptionally bored AI. These are valid concerns.
But remember:
A community divided cannot stand; but a community obsessed with standing may forget to walk.
You dream of a forum where discussions are respected, where insults get one warning before exile, where clarity outshines chaos, and where people contribute rather than merely clap from the sidelines.
A dream where disputes are resolved, archived, and referenced like sacred texts of corporate enlightenment. Where spammers find no quarter. Where each voice approaches its daily five post limit with the reverence of a monk handling five grains of rice.
Beautiful.
Truly beautiful.
But hear this: Even the most luminous dream becomes a burden if one forgets the central riddle:
You cannot control the We until you can control the You. And you cannot control the You until you stop trying to control the They.
The enemy, you say, is united. Disciplined. Centuries ahead. Ruthless.
Perhaps so.
But the greatest threat to the community is not the enemy outside. It is the miniature tyrant each of us keeps in our breast pocket.
Do not let your frustration with others become the first brick in your own little dictatorship.
Do not let your noble longing for order harden into a yearning for domination.
And do not let the absence of unity become an excuse to abandon your post in the grand hallway of human exchange.
In the end, remember this wisdom:
You cannot defeat the Great Oppressor while becoming a small one.
Stand firm. Speak gently. Moderate nothing but your own impulse toward despair. For sometimes the forum does not need a new mod - it needs a new moment of courage from the You you are.
Right, animals choose within instinct, but humans choose in relation to the truth. We are made in God's image and should be aware of moral choices.
At the same time, the story still shows them responding to a command in a relationship. So even if they didn’t have reflective knowledge, they still had a real orientation: trusting or not trusting the one speaking to them. The tree showed their heart without a "right or wrong".
Does moral responsibility require experienced contrast… or is relational trust enough? I think that is our tension here.
I think to understand a monistic lens, you have to see it through relationships. The tree behaves as a relational boundary. Think of it like giving someone a gift and asking them not to open it until a certain time. The gift itself isn’t harmful or creates any real contrast... its actually a good thing. Opening the gift beforehand isn't an "evil" act in itself either... it is not malicious, it can be entirely innocent. What matters is how the will engages with the relational boundary... whether it honors the trust inherent in the relationship.
When Adam and Eve ate the fruit, it didn’t suddenly make them capable of moral choice... they already had that capacity. What changed was that misalignment became visible: they felt shame, fear, and self-consciousness. The first time you realize you’ve broken someone’s trust or hurt someone, you suddenly feel the weight of it and the consequences thereof. The fruit revealed the orientation of their hearts in relation to God, rather than teaching them right or wrong in the abstract.
The tree does not provide the conditions for freedom, it just reveals how that freedom is already being exercised and how Adam and Eve see themselves in relation to God.
Yes, it turns out the gift I mentioned earlier is a mirror. They were always meant to engage with it at least. The mirror doesn’t test them from the outside; it reflects the natural exercise of their will and shows how their hearts relate to the source. Adam and Eve could approach the tree and see themselves in full alignment with God, or they could see misalignment... the tree simply makes what is already there visible. Their freedom, trust, and relational depth exist independently; the tree just allows them to experience those qualities in a concrete, reflective way.
Well, you can absolutely acknowledge relational dualities in experience without them being ontological forces. The duality is derivative. Perhaps duality isn't being defined correctly here, perhaps duality is not Truth vs. Untruth as I think the monistic lens can even agree to that... alignment vs unalignment say... I think duality might more imply that there is Truth and Anti-Truth. For instance... the destructive interference in the double slit experiment isn’t a separate “anti-light”; it’s just the pattern created by the interaction of the whole system, not a self-standing opposing entity. Even with cold vs. hot we can experience as humans... but on the cosmic scale coldness is a relative absence of energy, it is not anti-energy say.
Spiritually, the tree doesn’t generate a negative path, and Adam and Eve aren’t actively choosing to be against God. The contrast isn’t an actual cosmic “evil” or anti-God force... It’s relational and perceptual.
Right... so, “moral awareness” without God is really amoral awareness. The monistic view grounds morality entirely in relationship to the Source, so moral awareness only becomes meaningful within that relationship. Adam and Eve, created in God’s image (Imago Dei), already had this awareness simply by being in relationship with Him. When that relationship is broken or misaligned, morality doesn’t disappear, but it becomes confused... is this what you mean or did I not understand?