Download Free Neomonism Book in PDF and EPUB Free Download. You can read online Neomonism and write the review.

Reality appears dualistic from a logical standpoint. Monism is the picking of one side of the issue as real and the other an illusion. Neomonism is the stance that the answer is not to be found in one or the other but in a nondualistic stance that is a paradoxical unity. I submit there is great confusion over the concept of one. There is the mathematical understanding of one as singular or exclusive and there is the metaphysical understanding of one as manifold or inclusive. Mathematical oneness comes from the language of the mind and metaphysical oneness comes from the language of the heart. This confusion is apparent when we talk about the oneness of -O- (My spelling of the word God.) as we assume a mathematical one that is separate while we are discussing a metaphysical one that is unity. It is true that -O- is one in the mathematical sense of the term, but it is also true that -O- is one in the metaphysical sense of the term. -O- is singular in that there is nothing but -O- and at the same time -O- is unity for the same reason. -O- is not a separate one nor separate manys for the one contains the many while the many contain the one. One of the biggest problems with using the mathematical concept when discussing Metaphysical issues is the idea of separate entities. -O- is separate from Nature. Man is separate from Nature. -O- is separate from Man. These separations are true only in a logical sense for one cannot separate one from the other in an existential sense. The Biblical and Science Literalists are equally hubristic by acting as if they have the authority speak for all of us on these issue of Science vs. Religion. It seems to me this is a false dichotomy with equally unreasonable choices. I find it somewhat amusing to listen to the arguments between the two camps as these people make idols out of images in their attempt to force all people to accept one or the other of the campfire stories as Truth. The Bibleist says only X is true while the Materialist says only Y is true and both fail to realize their respective images are irrelevant when it comes to Reality, which is at least A through Z. Perhaps the most hubristic is this assertion that in order to be considered a -O-image, the qualifier that it must be a being with volition and intent is included. To a Taoist, the concept of the Tao has the same function as the concept of God does to a Christian; why is one a -O-image and the other not? It does not follow that if some parts of one -O-image are shown to be mistaken from a Scientific P.O.V., that all -O-images are thereby invalid for the same reasons. Although they are two aspects of the same enterprise (the understanding of Reality), they occupy different functions in life. Religion is in the sphere of the Intuitive while Science is in the sphere of the Rational. This is why traditional monism misses the point; the One is not a choice between two sides of an issue. Unity is a Reality that encompasses Is and Is Not. We act as if our dictionary daffynitions are the only valid ones, which is certainly not the case, for neither the Biblical nor the Scietheistic images cover the entirety of the Reality. One does not have to give up the idea of -O- just because scientific evidence shows the universe to be self-generating. It seems a bit absurd to me that our Worldview be based on either one or the other when neither option fills the bill by itself. Neomonism questions the assumption of separateness as a fundamental truth. There may be a dichotomy between mind and matter, for example, but is the dichotomy logical or existential? Some take the stance of mind only as reality, some take the body only stance; each mistakes a logical paradox for an existential state of reality. Without body, as we understand it, we would not have mind, as we understand it. Mind only is a partial answer, body only is a partial answer. That any one particular answer is a partial answer does not mean it is a false answer, me
With a view to recent developments in both the EU and the global legal order, International Law as Law of the European Union explores how, and to what extent, international law still forms part of, and plays a role in, the current legal order of the European Union.
This edited collection appraises the role, self-perception, reasoning and impact of the European Court of Justice on the development of European Union (EU) external relations law. Against the background of the recent recasting of the EU Treaties by the Treaty of Lisbon and at a time when questions arise over the character of the Court's judicial reasoning and the effect of international legal obligations in its case law, it discusses the contribution of the Court to the formation of the EU as an international actor and the development of EU external relations law, and the constitutional challenges the Court faces in this context. To what extent does the position of the Court contribute to a specific conception of the EU? How does the EU's constitutional order, as interpreted by the Court, shape its external relations? The Court still has only limited jurisdiction over the EU's Common Foreign and Security Policy: why has this decision been taken, and what are its implications? And what is the Court's own view of the relationship between court(s) and foreign policy, and of its own relationship with other international courts? The contributions to this volume show that the Court's influence over EU external relations derives first from its ability to shape and define the external competence of the EU and resulting constraints on the Member States, and second from its insistence on the autonomy of the EU legal order and its role as 'gatekeeper' to the entry and effect of international law into the EU system. It has not - in the external domain - overtly exerted influence through shaping substantive policy, as it has, for example, in relation to the internal market. Nevertheless the rather 'legalised' nature of EU external relations and the significance of the EU's international legal commitments mean that the role of the Court of Justice is more central than that of a national court with respect to the foreign policy of a nation state. And of course its decisions can nonetheless be highly political.
Prompted by recent events in the EU’s international environmental cooperation, this thought-provoking book explores the establishment and use of multilateral environmental compliance mechanisms as part of the EU’s external environmental action. Expanding upon current discussions in external relations law, this timely book uses a doctrinal approach to analyse EU engagement with this key instrument of treaty-based international environmental governance.
This study of regime collisions in international law combines theoretical contributions by leading scholars in the field with case studies.
Provides new insights for solving conflicts between International, EU and National Law by rethinking the relationship between the three.
The book gathers a group of scholars interested in both public international law and EU law to cover different facets of the relationship between the European Union and customary international law. Considering the distinct perspectives taken by international law and EU law, while also looking into the space in between the two, individual chapters tackle complex questions such as whether and on what bases the European Union is bound by customary international law as a matter of international law and EU law; how the European Union contributes to the development of international custom; and how different stakeholders – the Court of Justice of the European Union, the EU's political organs and EU citizens – rely upon customary rules. The book thus offers a systematic account of the relevance of customary international law for the external relations and internal functioning of what is no doubt the most remarkable regional international organization of our time.
In recent years a series of scandals have challenged the traditional political reliance on public constitutional law and human rights as a safeguard of human well-being. Multinational corporations have violated human rights; private intermediaries in the internet have threatened freedom of opinion, and the global capital markets unleashed catastrophic risks. All of these phenomena call for a response from traditional constitutionalism. Yet it is outside the limits of the nation-state in transnational politics and outside institutionalized politics, in the 'private' sectors of global society that these constitutional problems arise. It is widely accepted that there is a crisis in traditional constitutionalism caused by transnationalization and privatization. How the crisis can be overcome is one of the major controversies of modern political and constitutional theory. This book sets out an answer to that problem. It argues that the obstinate state-and-politics-centricity of traditional constitutionalism needs to be counteracted by a sociological approach which, so far, has remained neglected in the constitutional debate. Constitutional sociology projects the questions of constitutionalism not only onto the relationship between public politics and law, but onto the whole society. It argues that constitutionalism has the potential to counteract the expansionist tendencies of social systems outside the state world, particularly of the globalized economy, science and technology, and the information media, when they endanger individual or institutional autonomy. The book identifies transnational regimes, particularly in the private area, as the new constitutional subjects in a global society, rivals to the order and power of nation states. It presents a model of transnational, societal constitutional fragments that could bring the values of constitutionalism to bear on these private networks, examining the potential horizontal application of human rights in the private sphere, and how such fragments could interact. An original and provocative contribution to the literature on modern constitutionalism, Constitutional Fragments is essential reading for all those engaged in transnational political theory.
Ecolinguistics recognizes the fact that different words mean different things to different people and that these differences in meaning for any given word correlate with the speaker's sex, age, education and kind of work, as well as the speaker's regional dialect. Variationism and a lack of absolute standards are not incidentals as grammatical theory construction, but are the norm for all known languages.