That’s an interesting perspective! Neutral monism does indeed attempt to reconcile the mind-body problem by positing that both mental and physical entities arise from a more fundamental substance or reality. However, you’re correct in pointing out that this approach might overlook the distinction between the creator and the created.

The idea of neutral monism can be seen as implying a more impersonal, pantheistic view of reality, where the fundamental substance is seen as the ultimate reality, and both mind and matter are mere manifestations of it. This perspective might not provide a clear account of how the universe came into existence or why it has the particular properties it does.

In contrast, the notion of a personal and intentional creator suggests a more theistic view, where a conscious, intelligent being brings the universe into existence with a specific purpose or design in mind. This approach can provide a sense of direction, meaning, and purpose to the universe, which might be lacking in a purely neutral monist framework.

One potential criticism of neutral monism is that it may struggle to account for the emergence of complex structures, consciousness, and intentionality within the universe. A personal creator, on the other hand, could provide a more coherent explanation for these phenomena, as they would be seen as part of a deliberate design or plan.

That being said, the debate between neutral monism and theistic perspectives is ongoing, and each has its strengths and weaknesses. Neutral monism can provide a more parsimonious explanation for the natural world, while theistic views might offer a more comprehensive understanding of the universe’s origins and purpose.

Ultimately, the choice between these two perspectives depends on one’s metaphysical commitments, epistemological assumptions, and values. Do you think that a personal creator is necessary to explain the existence and nature of the universe, or can neutral monism provide a sufficient account?