Nature = self-governed
Supernatural = over nature

supernatural is only meaningful in the light of the natural, then it would seem that everything is fundamentally natural including God and the domain God resides in. — Harry Hindu

…supernatural is only meaningful in the light of the natural, then it would seem that everything is fundamentally natural including God and the domain God resides in.

The conclusion’s soundness seems to depend on the prefix “super-”, which of course means ‘over’. However, ‘over’ covers up two distinct concepts. Does it mean ‘above’ (over and not touching) or ‘on’ (over and touching)? If it means ‘on/connected to’ then supernatural just means artificial. Humans trick nature into doing things beyond their natural ends all the time. But at the same time, it is just human nature to do artificial things. Therefore, the difference is just direct and indirect. So, in this sense, we have a mutually arising relationship like the one you described.

On the other hand, Platonic monotheists have actively pushed the unconnected sense. Their God creates ex nihilo and is the unmoved mover. It is the radical other that by definition can not be embraced. It always sits outside any harmonization project like non-dualism.

In short, above all else it rests on ‘over’.

I have begun to think that the division between theism and atheism is anything but a black or white issue, — Jack Cummins

When pressed for a quick label, I will use the label of “atheist”. However, it does give me pause when I do, because “atheist” is a parasite term. It needs “theist” to be defined before it is possible to be an “atheist”. For example, polytheists are justified in calling monotheists, “atheists” because they nowadays deny the existence of many gods. Or if your definition of God is the most powerful being then I might be a theist (Just depends on if you can prove power can be measured). So, in theist/atheist pairing, I can see one side of a non-dualistic relationship.

The question is the other side. Does theism need atheism to have meaning/exist? The best positive answer I can come up with is, “yes because without the denial (atheism) it quickly becomes pantheism”. If one cannot say this is not God then everything becomes God. And if everything is God, then “God” is functionally meaningless. Or it is a fun way to be a closet atheist.

But it's not clear to me what you mean by "self-deception." — Ciceronianus

I agree. This is the concept that does the heavy lifting.

Is philosophy done on the page or is it done in the person? The act of self-deception is a complicated task requiring knowing AND not knowing in the unity of consciousness, which seems to be a contradiction. In fact, I would say it cannot be done directly.

However, if it is possible to externalize the deception then it becomes possible. For example, one could play a prank on oneself by hiding an alarm clock set to go off 6 months later. In this case, it could be said you deceived yourself. In the same way, if philosophy is done on the page, then this externalized thing can be used for self-deception.

We write our thoughts (which are connected to a myriad of unwritten thoughts and possibles) onto the page, then we walk away. Eventually, we come back to these disconcerted words and they appear different to us because we started the process of forgetting. And at this point, self-deception can begin.

I neither know nor think I know

--Socrates

Is there a way out? If philosophy is a way of life, then one is always sitting with incompleteness (Experiential claim - Maybe the reader feels they know everything completely. In that case this does not apply.) In the face of this incompleteness, how can one claim to know anything in an absolute sense? The best one can muster is 'right at this second it looks good to me'.

But this is a domino effect that we would like to happen without fail — L'éléphant

In Confucianism after the Analects, I would say human nature is that first domino. For Mencius, human nature is good (Child and the Well story 2A:6), so we will seek the good, which is a proper education. Xunzi starts in the opposite direction, but ends up in the same place. Human nature is “evil” (self-interested), but some humans (The sage Kings) also had intelligence and understood we needed to work together for self-interested reasons, so they created rites/education. So, if Mencius is right then the domino can fall anytime. If Xunzi is right, it just requires an intelligent person to see the value.

However, I hate using other philosophers to explain another philosopher, so let me try to give an answer more directly from the Analects. Possibly the first saying in the Analects gives a clue.

1.1 The Master said, Studying, and from time to time going over what
you’ve learned—that’s enjoyable, isn’t it? To have a friend come
from a long way off—that’s a pleasure, isn’t it? Others don’t understand him, but he doesn’t resent it—that’s the true gentleman,
isn’t it?

To be human (which is the goal of the gentleman/君子) is to have these twin pleasures of learning and being social. If that is true then human nature again makes the domino fall.

To be human is to be social -- but it starts within the family. — L'éléphant

Yes, this is one of the points of contention between the Confucianists and the Mohists (墨家). The Confucianist claimed the Mohists universal love would fail because it does not take into account the primary nature of the family in ren formulation. This leads to the question of, how is family primary in ren formulation? Is it the natural, usual place it is formed OR is it the only place it can be formed? From later Confuncianist (Mengzi and Xunzi), we see the first answer being favored. Despite those two being opposed on the question of human nature (Mengzi →Humans are good by nature | Xunzi →Humans are self-centered by nature), their action plans were the same: education. So, ren formulation is possible through any education plan independent of the family.

In the Analects, we can also see the roots of this thinking.

Chapter 2, Verse 5
Meng Yi Tzu asked about being filial. The Master answered, 'Never fail to comply.' Fan Ch'ih was driving. The Master told him about the interview, saying, 'Meng sun asked me about being filial. I answered, "Never fail to comply."' Fan Ch'ih asked, 'What does that mean?' The Master said, 'When your parents are alive, comply with the rites in serving them; when they die, comply with the rites in burying them; comply with the rites in sacrificing to them.' Lau [2:5]

In 2.5, we see filial piety is restrained by ritual and ritual is something that is learned and practiced. So, with ritual, we still have a chance to learn ren. (What to do in a world without ritual? Open-question)

For now, I see Confucianism [sic] as the description of an ideal human being — L'éléphant

To me, this primal nature of the family suggests a different way to understand the Confucian project. Education is the key to bring about this ideal state. However, this is not abstract education. It is a practice. So, one has to live the ideal, before it is real. In a phase, it is a “fake it until you make it” mentality.

Why do this?

[15:21] The Master said: “The noble man seeks within himself. The inferior man seeks within others.”

That is a great place to start. The first appearance of 仁(ren), which of course immediately brings up the question of what is 仁(ren) and the secondary question how to translate it? In some ways, the whole of the Analects is trying to answer that question, so it really should be tabled. However, the secondary question demands an attempt.

I like starting with the character itself. 仁(ren) is made of “people” plus “two”, which I think is a good start. For me, in Confusius’ philosophy, it seems to be human is to be social. This goes with another usage of 仁(ren). If your hand goes numb then you can say “not 仁(ren)” because you are disconnected from it.

So, I take the Analects to be answering, how to be human (live meaningfully)? It is through 仁(ren) or social connection or love (in Empedocles sense). This passage says the first place we learn 仁(ren) is in the family.

One thing, I would note. From my reading of Confucius, it would be a mistake to read him as just a political philosopher. He is teaching a life-philosophy (a way to create meaning) that centers around being human/social, which has a political aspect. However, it also has an ethical and customary aspect, too.

Confucianism as a philosophy is a big umbrella, so there are a lot of different paths. One path would be to start with Mencius and Xunzi. They are considered elaborator of Confucius’ teachings. Of course, they added a lot of their own ideas. Another path is to read Doctrine of the Mean and the Great Learning. These are texts that were used in later forms of Confucianism as a well to draw metaphysical concepts to compete with Buddhism. Lastly, you could re-read the Analects with commentaries from Zhu Xi. Zhu Xi set the standard understanding of the Analects for about 700 years.