The Existential Perspective

As humans, we are often in search of meaning, morality, and direction in a world that can seem both chaotic and indifferent. Various philosophical traditions have sought to provide answers to life’s essential questions, but most of these philosophies end in arguments with religion or morality. Therefore, I propose that our world is a combination of existentialism, a neutral God, and moral nihilism—a combination that explains the nature of reality, morality, and human experience.

At the core of existentialism is the belief that life has no inherent meaning. Existentialist philosophers such as Jean-Paul Sartre argued that humans are condemned to be free; we must create our own purpose and values. In a world where there are no predetermined truths, individuals are tasked with defining their own existence.

This aligns with the view that the universe operates without a guiding moral or spiritual framework. Instead of seeking answers from external sources, we are responsible for our choices and how we shape our reality. Human free will offers us the ability to take full self-responsibility for every choice, thought, action, feeling, and word. There is no opportunity for blame, shame, guilt, or victimization when your reality is your own created entirely based on your own perception.

While existentialism may seem scary to some, the concept of a neutral God—inspired by Taoism and Buddhism—offers an alternative perspective on divinity. Rather than seeing God as an enforcer of moral codes or a judge of good and evil, this view sees the divine as indifferent to human morality. In Taoism, the Tao is the flow of the universe, encompassing both light and dark, yin and yang, but favoring neither. It is the essence of all things but imposes no moral judgment.

Similarly, in Buddhist philosophy, the universe is seen as fundamentally indifferent to human suffering and joy. The cycle of samsara (birth, life, death, and rebirth) continues regardless of human concepts of right and wrong. The divine, in this sense, is an impartial observer, present in all things but detached from human concerns.

God created all things equally, establishing a spectrum of experience and human emotion that reflects one another. Human emotions range from love to hate, while experiences oscillate between joy (representing love) and suffering (representing hate). Concepts of right (or good, aligned with love) and wrong (or bad, aligned with hate) exist on this same spectrum. They were not devised as mechanisms for punishment or reward; rather, they are neutral constructs that each individual is responsible for interpreting according to their own understanding.

In this context, religious notions of heaven and hell also reflect this spectrum. However, these are not tangible places that exist outside of human perception; they are interpretations of experience that arise from our individual and collective understanding of joy, suffering, love, and hate. By recognizing this, we can appreciate that the responsibility for interpreting our experiences lies within us, allowing for a more nuanced understanding of life’s complexities.

This idea of a neutral God challenges traditional views of morality. If the divine is not concerned with our notions of good and evil, where does morality come from? If God does not enforce justice, what is the purpose of right and wrong?

The answer to these questions lies in moral nihilism, which suggests that right and wrong are human inventions, without objective basis. In this view, morality is shaped by culture, society, and individual experience rather than by any universal truth. Different societies have different moral codes, but none is more inherently valid than the other. What one culture deems immoral, another might celebrate as virtuous.

Moral nihilism asserts that human beings create concepts of right and wrong to structure their lives and communities, but these are subjective. In the context of a neutral God and an existentialist worldview, moral nihilism explains why individuals and societies create their own rules and values to make sense of their existence, but these rules are not divine mandates.

If morality is a human construct, what does that say about our instincts, particularly the instinct for self-defense? In most societies, self-defense is seen as a basic right—one that is justified in the preservation of life. However, when viewed through the lens of existentialism, neutral divinity, and moral nihilism, the need for self-defense becomes questionable.

Existentialism tells us that we are free to choose how we respond to threats, but it does not dictate that we must defend ourselves. The neutral God does not require us to preserve our lives at all costs, nor does it enforce any obligation to respond with violence or aggression. In fact, philosophies like Taoism and Buddhism suggest that non-resistance and detachment are preferable to conflict. To defend oneself is to cling to the ego, to the self as something that must be preserved at all costs. Yet, if we recognize the impermanence of life and the neutrality of the universe, self-defense becomes just another human construct, unnecessary in the grand scheme of existence.

Moreover, moral nihilism would argue that self-defense is only morally justified because humans have decided it to be so. There is no universal rule that says one must defend themselves when attacked; it is a choice based on societal norms and personal beliefs. When those beliefs are called into question, the instinct to defend oneself may no longer hold the same weight.

By integrating existentialism, a neutral God, and moral nihilism, we arrive at a worldview that frees individuals from the constraints of imposed morality and divine intervention. In this framework, life is what we make of it. The divine does not enforce rules of good or evil, and morality is something we create to serve our own purposes.

Psychology often seeks to explain and defend the wounded human ego as a natural part of life. However, this approach is fundamentally flawed, as it typically assumes that the ego's perception of the world is the truth and that this is how life is meant to be experienced. When we shift our lens to existentialism, moral nihilism, and the principles of Taoism and Buddhism, we find that the ego is liberated to interpret the world in whatever way it deems appropriate.

In this paradigm, the constraints of societal constructs, religious dogmas, and moral judgments fall away. The ego is no longer burdened with the need to defend itself or confined to a painful interpretation of experience. Instead, it is free to explore and express its identity without the limitations imposed by external expectations.

When the ego is allowed to be whoever it chooses, the psychological explanations of behavior based on constructs of right and wrong lose their relevance. The focus shifts from merely understanding behavior through the lens of societal norms to embracing the freedom of self-expression and interpretation. This liberating perspective invites individuals to engage with their experiences authentically, fostering a deeper sense of self-mastery.

With this understanding, we are empowered to live authentically, making choices not based on fear of divine retribution or societal judgment, but on our own sense of purpose and understanding of the world. The need for self-defense fades, as we realize that preservation of the self is not an obligation but a choice, one that is neither right nor wrong but simply part of the human experience.

One may argue that allowing the ego to disconnect from an experience leads to dissociation, a state often viewed negatively by society and labeled as unhealthy by psychology. However, this perspective is based on societal expectations that pressure us to take our experiences personally and to exert control over them. In truth, such a viewpoint may limit our potential for growth and understanding.

If we accept that each individual possesses a soul or spirit capable of offering guidance, we must also acknowledge that accessing this wisdom often requires some form of ego dissociation. This dissociation is not a retreat from reality; rather, it is a necessary step to open ourselves to the higher perspective of our soul or spirit. It allows us to transcend the confines of the wounded ego, enabling us to view our experiences with greater clarity and insight.

Dissociation, then, becomes a pathway to heightened awareness. In this light, it is essential to recognize that psychology often misinterprets this phenomenon. By demonizing dissociation and framing it as something to be avoided, it misses the profound potential for personal transformation inherent in stepping back from the ego's narrative. Rather than being an unhealthy escape, dissociation can serve as a means of reconnecting with our true essence, leading us to deeper self-understanding and alignment with our higher self.

In this context, embracing dissociation can empower us to reinterpret our experiences not as burdens but as opportunities for growth. It encourages us to listen to the guidance of our soul or spirit, allowing us to navigate life's challenges with a sense of purpose and connection. Ultimately, it is through this process of dissociation that we can cultivate self-mastery, embracing the complexities of our existence without being held hostage by the limitations of the ego.

This discussion begins to weave together the concepts of existentialism, moral nihilism, Buddhism/Taoism, self-mastery, psychology, and dissociation. As I continue, I’ll be expanding on these ideas and exploring how they relate to the self-mastery and spiritual healing principles I’ve shared in the past.

If this resonates with you, I invite you to subscribe to my blog, email list, and podcast for more insights. If you're interested in delving deeper into these ideas, consider working with me through my coaching programs. All of the links can be found here.

Love to all.

Della

 

Ready for more? Subscribe to the blog and comment to join the conversation!

Discuss...