Monism just means the belief in only ONE SUBSTANCE. It does not specify what this substance should be.
On the other hand, materialism does not mean that the only substance has to be "substantial" in the traditional sense. It does not specify what materia may be like. So equalling monism and materialism is very common, although not necessarily correct.
It has often been pointed out that the REAL problem with dualism is not its belief in two substances but that it can't answer the question on how the two substances interact which each other. Would that not actually require athird substance? And so on.
So the only credible intellectual response is to accept monism as the only possible option.
Of course leaving the exact constitution of the one substance (with the endless amount of attributes) to be solved by science and philosophy in collaboration.
Where has anyone said that Monism = Materialism? I for one find a whole spectrum between material and immaterial, between matter and energy and whatever else might be out there and in here. As a non-dualist, I can certainly understand that matter itself combines in certain predictable ways to make smart ol' us, but I cannot believe that we are matter alone, or that matter alone creates energy, or that energy alone creates what we know as consciousness, or that consciousness alone is differentiated enough to maintain a distinct identity without the actions of matter, energy and other components of Us.
--- In Ushta@yahoogroups.com, SHAHROOZ ASH
> Dear Friends,
> Hope all is well and good.
> 1. Every physical event must have a physical cause; therefore, if we are Monists (Materialism), then Freewill does not exist. Only brain, means, no freewill. There is no way out of this; it is the consequence of the choice.