Categories
Uncategorized

Ethical monotheism and its alternatives

Paul Johnson, in his “History of the Jews”, uses the phrase “ethical monotheism” frequently.  Or so I recall.  I have no editor, nor a desire for one.

In any event, the intent is to point to a single law, a single standard of behavior, a single set of moral precepts, a very specific set of rules to live by which govern everyone who submits to their dominion, or who is born into it and does not openly rebel.

Necessarily, such a mindset creates clear chasms between those holding those views, and everyone else.  And as early as the Roman times, one sees anti-Semitism originating not in a rejection of the Jews moral code, but from their rejection of everyone else as inferior, and their corresponding cultural insularity.

Now, I proposed the term henomoralism some time ago.  I had meant that one could change one’s dominant value based on circumstances, but the Greek implies more closely that one has a relatively set value system, but is open to those of others.  Henomoralism–heck, perhaps I need another word, Henoculturalism–is the root of a truly Liberal order. 

It seems to me that based on our past, our religious beliefs, our DNA, and overall cultural system, we tend to adopt relatively fixed value systems.  For me, honesty, loyalty, courage and imagination are all very important values.  Other people will vary to differing extents, and this is OK.

How is this:  Ethical polymoralism?  The notion that we can have differing values, the same way some nations, like India, are quite happy to accept any number of other gods, with some Hindus adding Christ to their shrines without any contradiction or problem.

All this, as is often the case, is me meandering out loud to make one point: what if I asserted our primary ETHICAL duty is to learn how to relax our physical bodies in such a way that we also relax our minds and emotional chatter completely.  Our duty is to relax.  Have you heard this? 

But ponder this: in my own view, honest morality is situational.  True moral decisions are local, necessary, and imperfect.  This is my code, my way of viewing it.  A further stipulation is that higher morality requires higher wisdom.  You have to know yourself well enough to wish good for all people, including yourself, and you have to be smart enough to see what, working systemically and over time, will work best to produce the result you truly want, because you know yourself (as opposed to the result you say you want because it brings you attention and chicks).

Self knowledge proceeds most truly from deep relaxation.  In my own experience, things come to you.  Large patterns of frozen blindness dissolve, and you suddenly see things you have been doing and saying and thinking all your life in a completely new light.  You wake the fuck up.  And this process can happen over and over and over again.  This is Kun Zhi, as the Tibetans put it. 

I have discussed this before, but perhaps the language I use will be slightly different.  Within my own practice of Kum Nye, there are recognized three levels of relaxation.  The first is the superficial one you get with a good massage, or light meditation, or just a pleasant day and a couple good drinks with friends on the beach.

The second is where the turbulence begins.  It is where shit starts flying at you, where what was attached and frozen comes loose and knocks you in the head.  This is like a pattern of rough seas you have to transit to get to the calm on the other side.  Using this metaphor, I suppose the first level is staying in port, and never going anywhere but onto the ship.

But the third level is where interesting things happen, or so I read.  I would assert it is our ethical duty to seek this third level, because then it becomes possible to be truly intelligent.  This is where meditation–which I believe is better translated “concentration” in most relevant languages–begins, in my understanding of this tradition.