Dualism

[waxwing]

Dualism:

n. 1. the state of being dual or consisting of two parts; division into two.

2. a. (in metaphysics) any of various theories holding that reality is composed of two mutually irreducible substances.

3. a. the theological doctrine that there are two eternal principles, one good and one evil. b. the belief that humans embody two parts, as body and soul.

Commenting on any of the above definitions (or alluding to your own references), what do you think about dualism?

[CosmicDust]

I disfavor it. The materialistic and evolutionary psych perspectives on these matters make sense to me. Obviously the mind and body do not exist on parallel planes. When certain things go wrong with your body, things can go wrong with your mind. Your mind can influence how your body heals. They're an interconnected system, and it just seems to make more sense to put them in the same plane and make them of the same stuff, so the same forces and dynamical laws can act on them and allow them to interact.

Good vs. evil: it's a matter of perspective, really. I like the evolutionary psych perspective on the origins of that split: things that favor perpetuation of one's patterns (including DNA) vs. those that don't. I don't think an entity that doesn't have the stuff to care about such things, like a star, would give a care about such things. Also, bad for one can be good for another - a supernova destroys a star but can lead to the creation of more stars through the ripples it creates in the gas and planets from the nuclear fusion products. I don't think "pure good" and "pure evil" can be found in the Universe.

The tendency toward dualistic thinking is likely a quirk of human perception honed by the forces of nature, like seeing in three primary colors. (There are squid or something that see in many more primary colors - maybe 11, I forget how many exactly.) Quick labels like "good" and "bad" or "animate" and "inanimate" are useful for sorting the stuff of the world and making practical use of it for one's survival.

[Lee]

I would post a more interesting reply but CosmicDust seems to have clarified my opinion better than I could have.

I do not subscribe to dualism, although I can see why some do.

[nBT]

i would like to add this: there is dualism to be pointed out everywhere. that as a tool is usefull. also appearantly cosmicdust cant escape to use 2 ends then then tell they are one. the relation between two dualistic ends will always exist. dualism keeps itself in motion. you cannot seperate the two ends.
having said that, i find it hard to let go of the dualistic idea, now that i know about it. on the evolutionairy account: dualism is a handy system to sort priorities.

[Sir Isaac Lime]

New Age folk seem to like dualist metaphors. Transcending and the like.

[euterpenc]

I agree completely, kind of. I believe that our world is made of opposites, or atleast made in large part by them. However, there are more opposites than just good and evil.

[MacGuffin]

I like the idea of dualism. Yin and yang, good and evil, matter and anti-matter, etc.

[Lee]

I like the idea of dualism. Yin and yang, good and evil, matter and anti-matter, etc....the dark side of the force and the light.

[Lee]

If dualism were correct, what would be it's opposite? the opposite would also have to be correct.... woudn't it?

:confused:

[MacGuffin]

If dualism were correct, what would be it's opposite? the opposite would also have to be correct.... woudn't it?

:confused:
LOL. Like many INTPs, you have to watch out for thinking yourself into a mental institution.

[SheepDog]

I see a strange paradox here. On one hand the yin/yang idea (as I choose to interpret it) is a way of illustrating non-judging, as in "there is good and bad in everything", or "nothing is either good or bad". But there is a simulaneous effect of some people to go around categorizing things as either yin or yang, good or bad. The opposite of non-judging, IMO.

I've seen it used both ways. I favor the former, as illustrated by CosmicDust, above.

This is kind of a Zen thing, but I think there is value in contemplating things that seem to be inherently contradictory. It gives one a chance to question the thing, the assumptions, the "logic", and a whole host of other concepts that we humans apply to things. In the end, the universe is what it is, and doesn't care what we think, what we call it, or how we try to categorize it.

[floid]

Duality is prerequisite for conceptual awareness.

No "thinking" occurs except in the framework of duality.

It is real in an intellectual sense because it is the foundation of intellect.

In actual experience that has not been "thought about", however, it does not exist.

Can't express such things in language, however, since language is a formalized system of thought and therfore owes it's existence to duality.

That's why, in advaita, one is admonished to pay no attention to the word or the thought but perceive that upon which the word or the thought arises by suspending thought processes to allow pure "awareness" to momentarily predominate.

[SheepDog]

floid, I appreciate your comments about language and words.

[MacGuffin]

01010100011101110110111100100000011010000110000101101110011001000111001100100000011000110110110001100001011100000010000001100001011011100110010000100000011101000110100001100101011100100110010100100000011010010111001100100000011000010010000001110011011011110111010101101110011001000010111000100000010101110110100001100001011101000010000001101001011100110010000001110100011010000110010100100000011100110110111101110101011011100110010000100000011011110110011000100000011011110110111001100101001000000110100001100001011011100110010000111111

[SheepDog]

01010100011101110110111100100000011010000110000101101110011001000111001100100000011000110110110001100001011100000010000001100001011011100110010000100000011101000110100001100101011100100110010100100000011010010111001100100000011000010010000001110011011011110111010101101110011001000010111000100000010101110110100001100001011101000010000001101001011100110010000001110100011010000110010100100000011100110110111101110101011011100110010000100000011011110110011000100000011011110110111001100101001000000110100001100001011011100110010000111111
I can hear it, I just cannot say it.

[nBT]

floid ehm i like your post but,
you present a duality/opposition. unthought/thought, defined/undefined.

[SheepDog]

0100111001100001011011100010110101101001011011100010110000100000011000010010000001001010011000010111000001100001011011100110010101110011011001010010000001101101011000010111001101110100011001010111001000100000011001000111010101110010011010010110111001100111001000000111010001101000011001010010000001001101011001010110100101101010011010010010000001100101011100100110000100100000001010000011000100111000001101100011100000101101001100010011100100110001001100100010100100101100001000000111001001100101011000110110010101101001011101100110010101100100001000000110000100100000011101010110111001101001011101100110010101110010011100110110100101110100011110010010000001110000011100100110111101100110011001010111001101110011011011110111001000100000011101110110100001101111001000000110001101100001011011010110010100100000011101000110111100100000011010010110111001110001011101010110100101110010011001010010000001100001011000100110111101110101011101000010000001011010011001010110111000101110001000000100111001100001011011100010110101101001011011100010000001110011011001010111001001110110011001010110010000100000011101000110010101100001001011100010000001001000011001010010000001110000011011110111010101110010011001010110010000100000011010000110100101110011001000000111011001101001011100110110100101110100011011110111001000100111011100110010000001100011011101010111000000100000011001100111010101101100011011000010110000100000011000010110111001100100001000000111010001101000011001010110111000100000011010110110010101110000011101000010000001101111011011100010000001110000011011110111010101110010011010010110111001100111001011100010000001010100011010000110010100100000011100000111001001101111011001100110010101110011011100110110111101110010001000000111011101100001011101000110001101101000011001010110010000100000011101000110100001100101001000000110111101110110011001010111001001100110011011000110111101110111001000000111010101101110011101000110100101101100001000000110100001100101001000000110111001101111001000000110110001101111011011100110011101100101011100100010000001100011011011110111010101101100011001000010000001110010011001010111001101110100011100100110000101101001011011100010000001101000011010010110110101110011011001010110110001100110001011100010000000100010010010010111010000100000011010010111001100100000011011110111011001100101011100100110011001110101011011000110110000101110001000000100111001101111001000000110110101101111011100100110010100100000011101110110100101101100011011000010000001100111011011110010000001101001011011100010000100100010001000000010001001001100011010010110101101100101001000000111010001101000011010010111001100100000011000110111010101110000001011000010001000100000010011100110000101101110001011010110100101101110001000000111001101100001011010010110010000101100001000000010001001111001011011110111010100100000011000010111001001100101001000000110011001110101011011000110110000100000011011110110011000100000011110010110111101110101011100100010000001101111011101110110111000100000011011110111000001101001011011100110100101101111011011100111001100100000011000010110111001100100001000000111001101110000011001010110001101110101011011000110000101110100011010010110111101101110011100110010111000100000010010000110111101110111001000000110001101100001011011100010000001001001001000000111001101101000011011110111011100100000011110010110111101110101001000000101101001100101011011100010000001110101011011100110110001100101011100110111001100100000011110010110111101110101001000000110011001101001011100100111001101110100001000000110010101101101011100000111010001111001001000000111100101101111011101010111001000100000011000110111010101110000001111110010001000100000

[MacGuffin]

0100111001100001011011100010110101101001011011100010110000100000011000010010000001001010011000010111000001100001011011100110010101110011011001010010000001101101011000010111001101110100011001010111001000100000011001000111010101110010011010010110111001100111001000000111010001101000011001010010000001001101011001010110100101101010011010010010000001100101011100100110000100100000001010000011000100111000001101100011100000101101001100010011100100110001001100100010100100101100001000000111001001100101011000110110010101101001011101100110010101100100001000000110000100100000011101010110111001101001011101100110010101110010011100110110100101110100011110010010000001110000011100100110111101100110011001010111001101110011011011110111001000100000011101110110100001101111001000000110001101100001011011010110010100100000011101000110111100100000011010010110111001110001011101010110100101110010011001010010000001100001011000100110111101110101011101000010000001011010011001010110111000101110001000000100111001100001011011100010110101101001011011100010000001110011011001010111001001110110011001010110010000100000011101000110010101100001001011100010000001001000011001010010000001110000011011110111010101110010011001010110010000100000011010000110100101110011001000000111011001101001011100110110100101110100011011110111001000100111011100110010000001100011011101010111000000100000011001100111010101101100011011000010110000100000011000010110111001100100001000000111010001101000011001010110111000100000011010110110010101110000011101000010000001101111011011100010000001110000011011110111010101110010011010010110111001100111001011100010000001010100011010000110010100100000011100000111001001101111011001100110010101110011011100110110111101110010001000000111011101100001011101000110001101101000011001010110010000100000011101000110100001100101001000000110111101110110011001010111001001100110011011000110111101110111001000000111010101101110011101000110100101101100001000000110100001100101001000000110111001101111001000000110110001101111011011100110011101100101011100100010000001100011011011110111010101101100011001000010000001110010011001010111001101110100011100100110000101101001011011100010000001101000011010010110110101110011011001010110110001100110001011100010000000100010010010010111010000100000011010010111001100100000011011110111011001100101011100100110011001110101011011000110110000101110001000000100111001101111001000000110110101101111011100100110010100100000011101110110100101101100011011000010000001100111011011110010000001101001011011100010000100100010001000000010001001001100011010010110101101100101001000000111010001101000011010010111001100100000011000110111010101110000001011000010001000100000010011100110000101101110001011010110100101101110001000000111001101100001011010010110010000101100001000000010001001111001011011110111010100100000011000010111001001100101001000000110011001110101011011000110110000100000011011110110011000100000011110010110111101110101011100100010000001101111011101110110111000100000011011110111000001101001011011100110100101101111011011100111001100100000011000010110111001100100001000000111001101110000011001010110001101110101011011000110000101110100011010010110111101101110011100110010111000100000010010000110111101110111001000000110001101100001011011100010000001001001001000000111001101101000011011110111011100100000011110010110111101110101001000000101101001100101011011100010000001110101011011100110110001100101011100110111001100100000011110010110111101110101001000000110011001101001011100100111001101110100001000000110010101101101011100000111010001111001001000000111100101101111011101010111001000100000011000110111010101110000001111110010001000100000
010001010111100001100011011001010110110001101100011001010110111001110100001000000111011101101111011100100110101100101110001000000010000001000010011101010111010000100000011011010110100101101110011001010010000001100001011000110111010001110101011000010110110001101100011110010010000001110010011001010110110001100001011101000110010101100100001000000111010001101111001000000110010001110101011000010110110001101001011101000111100100100000001010000111010001110111011011110010000001101000011000010110111001100100011100110010100100100001

[SheepDog]

010001010111100001100011011001010110110001101100011001010110111001110100001000000111011101101111011100100110101100101110001000000010000001000010011101010111010000100000011011010110100101101110011001010010000001100001011000110111010001110101011000010110110001101100011110010010000001110010011001010110110001100001011101000110010101100100001000000111010001101111001000000110010001110101011000010110110001101001011101000111100100100000001010000111010001110111011011110010000001101000011000010110111001100100011100110010100100100001
01001001001000000111010001101000011011110111010101100111011010000111010000100000011000110110110001101111011100110110010101101101011010010110111001100100011001010110010001101110011001010111001101110011001000000111011101100001011100110010000001100101011100010111010101100001011011000110110001111001001000000111001001100101011011000110010101110110011000010110111001110100001011000010000001100001011011000111010001101000011011110111010101100111011010000010000001101100011001010111001101110011001000000110111101100010011101100110100101101111011101010111001100101110

[SheepDog]

0100000101101110011001000010000001100110011011110111001000100000011101000110100001100101001000000111001001100101011000110110111101110010011001000010110000100000010010010010000001000100010011110010000001100111011001010111010000100000011101000110100001100101001000000110110001101001011011100110101100100000011000100110010101110100011101110110010101100101011011100010000001100100011101010110000101101100011010010111010001111001001000000110000101101110011001000010000001100010011010010110111001100001011100100111100100101110001000000011101100101001

[MacGuffin]

0100000101101110011001000010000001100110011011110111001000100000011101000110100001100101001000000111001001100101011000110110111101110010011001000010110000100000010010010010000001000100010011110010000001100111011001010111010000100000011101000110100001100101001000000110110001101001011011100110101100100000011000100110010101110100011101110110010101100101011011100010000001100100011101010110000101101100011010010111010001111001001000000110000101101110011001000010000001100010011010010110111001100001011100100111100100101110001000000011101100101001010011000100111101001100

[tragula]

I apologize in advance for getting this thread back on track, and for not speaking computerese....

My meager thought and insight into this subject comes through MBTI actually.

Ti is a holistic visual intelligence, as I understand it. Therefore it does not fall into the duality trap. Everything is inextricably connected to everything else, even if it may be separated by time and or space.

Te is about dualism, and it does start with tagging objects with names. Once you've done that it all becomes further and further compartmentalized. I haven't figured out yet exactly how and when this kind of thinking is really useful...

[Lee]

If I have feelings about the posts here, they're disappointment for the most part. There's a lot of potential on this board, some very smart, experienced, thoughtful people. There's just so much noise that it's hard for the quality to be heard sometimes. Even from the people that I don't really care for, I have seen reason to have respect for their views. But even this gets lost in the noise far too often.
:p ;)

[coffeezombie]

Te is about dualism, and it does start with tagging objects with names. Once you've done that it all becomes further and further compartmentalized. I haven't figured out yet exactly how and when this kind of thinking is really useful...

I've found that those with dominant or secondary Te functions usually have *speed* when it comes to figuring something out, especially when it is the "obvious." For INTPs, who are dominant in Ti, we are usually much more deliberate in our thinking patterns (run lots of ideas through our head based upon observations, etc.)

[SheepDog]

:p ;)
I guess the relevance isn't so obvious... :nerd:

[Sir Isaac Lime]

Well, I agree dualism makes a handy tool, but it's horribly misused for the sort of "spiritual elitism". It's standard to make a claim that there are various levels/planes of existance/enlightenment/spirituality/etc. in which the person typically insinuates that he/she indeed have "transcended". Then they assume the reason you disagree with them is because you're still on plane 1.

[SheepDog]

Well, I agree dualism makes a handy tool, but it's horribly misused for the sort of "spiritual elitism". It's standard to make a claim that there are various levels/planes of existance/enlightenment/spirituality/etc. in which the person typically insinuates that he/she indeed have "transcended". Then they assume the reason you disagree with them is because you're still on plane 1.
I agree.

I also question whether it might be ego that drives people to think of themselves (or anyone else for that matter) as having "transceded." If they're transcended, then why would they need to stroke their ego by telling anyone. Or if not to tell anyone, why would anyone have a need to define levels at all. It seems like just another form of projecting the limits of human thought onto The Infinite (or whatever you want to call it, it just seemed to fit with "transcendence").

[waxwing]

Well, I agree dualism makes a handy tool, but it's horribly misused for the sort of "spiritual elitism". It's standard to make a claim that there are various levels/planes of existance/enlightenment/spirituality/etc. in which the person typically insinuates that he/she indeed have "transcended". Then they assume the reason you disagree with them is because you're still on plane 1.Fascinating. I too have seen dualistic ideas misused and translated into "spiritual elitism." I've seen and heard such claims to the effect of: Anything that is not directly and explicitly expressing Christ or Christian beliefs, for example, is of the devil. I've seen dualiam used as a reductionist tool, almost. Ones scope is narrowed and overly simplified rather than broadened and fleshed out.

However, for some reason I've been interested in dualism and its related theories. Paradox is apparent contradiction, by definition, right? Well, if something is apparently contradictary, it may or may not actually be in opposition. So, my temporary conclusion would be that I tend to live in opposition to dualism. I like thinking about paradoxes because of the possibly of finding a common theme/strand between two or more disparate parts. I really don't think I'd be all that interested in studying two completely opposing forces without wanting to somehow find a link. Because in my mind, at least, dualism would suggest a picture of two completely incompatible playing fields (similar to the idea I expressed earlier relating to spiritual forces in opposition). No, hm. I just at this moment realized that I can handle the idea of opposing spiritual forces; its the way that people manipulate an abstract gray "force" into a blacktop highway that seems inappropriate. Does that make sense?

[Sackanaka]

The extent to which I accept dualistic thinking is the yin-yang symbol of taoist belief-
and it's a circle. Paradox solved.

[SheepDog]

waxwing, I think what you just posted is pretty much the point of Zen Koans.

[waxwing]

I see a strange paradox here. On one hand the yin/yang idea (as I choose to interpret it) is a way of illustrating non-judging, as in "there is good and bad in everything", or "nothing is either good or bad". But there is a simulaneous effect of some people to go around categorizing things as either yin or yang, good or bad. The opposite of non-judging, IMO.

I've seen it used both ways. I favor the former, as illustrated by CosmicDust, above.

This is kind of a Zen thing, but I think there is value in contemplating things that seem to be inherently contradictory. It gives one a chance to question the thing, the assumptions, the "logic", and a whole host of other concepts that we humans apply to things. In the end, the universe is what it is, and doesn't care what we think, what we call it, or how we try to categorize it.

Yes. I agree. In your first paragraph, the former seems to resemble an all-or-nothing subset to a limitless, ever-expanding cosmos. The latter would seem to indicate an omniscient sort of Judge. In the first situation, dualism like an aid to discovering the universe. In the second, dualism is a tool representing the universe itself chopping off anything that doesn't neatly fit inside its parameters. It's like the classic question: Do we start with x, fluidly move to y, and conclude z (often an amorphous conclusion). Or, do we start with z (the product), and start categorizing like this:

(z --> x) and separately, dualistically, (z-->y).

[SheepDog]

speaking of "spiritual elitism", you might like this:
http://www.truetao.org/living/2001/200106.htm

[Lee]

I guess the relevance isn't so obvious... :nerd:
I undestand the relevence, but jokes can get old fast.

[SheepDog]

Yes. I agree. In your first paragraph, the former seems to resemble an all-or-nothing subset to a limitless, ever-expanding cosmos. The latter would seem to indicate an omniscient sort of Judge. In the first situation, dualism like an aid to discovering the universe. In the second, dualism is a tool representing the universe itself chopping off anything that doesn't neatly fit inside its parameters. It's like the classic question: Do we start with x, fluidly move to y, and conclude z (often an amorphous conclusion). Or, do we start with z (the product), and start categorizing like this:

(z --> x) and separately, dualistically, (z-->y).
It's interesting that you stated a logic question to illustrate the "Judging" type of dualism. I need to gather my thoughts on this before elaborating too much, but I think it's worth considering the effect of logic on contemplating things, generally. I won't say that logic has no place, but I will say that it affects what we see and cannot see, and it is imporant to consider that.

[SheepDog]

I undestand the relevence, but jokes can get old fast.
They were Koans, not jokes, actually.

[Lee]

They were Koans, not jokes, actually.
Fair enough.

[Sir Isaac Lime]

speaking of "spiritual elitism", you might like this:
http://www.truetao.org/living/2001/200106.htm

Heh.

"I'm so fucking humble it's not even funny"

[euterpenc]

If dualism were correct, what would be it's opposite? the opposite would also have to be correct.... woudn't it?

:confused:

In theory, yes. But what would it's opposite be? Perhaps it is as simple as it's opposite being anything that isn't itself.

[s0978]

In theory, yes. But what would it's opposite be? Perhaps it is as simple as it's opposite being anything that isn't itself.

Nice one.

I have a hard time conceiving of thinking dualistically as a choice. Seems absolutely ingrained, embedded, possibly even inherent to our very consciousness, thought/feeling processing -- for every thesis an anithesis, no? Hard to think of anything without thinking of its opposite, or its presence without its absence, etc. "Day" is partly defined by "night," on/off, good/bad, us/them, happy/sad, over/under... seems like "what something is not" is often intrinsic to the concept of the "something."

[nBT]

I've found that those with dominant or secondary Te functions usually have *speed* when it comes to figuring something out, especially when it is the "obvious." For INTPs, who are dominant in Ti, we are usually much more deliberate in our thinking patterns (run lots of ideas through our head based upon observations, etc.)

how about I and E as two opposing sides of a dualistic view on psygology.
I being the hollistic one and E the framgmented one

[waxwing]

Nice one.

I have a hard time conceiving of thinking dualistically as a choice. Seems absolutely ingrained, embedded, possibly even inherent to our very consciousness, thought/feeling processing -- for every thesis an anithesis, no? Hard to think of anything without thinking of its opposite, or its presence without its absence, etc. "Day" is partly defined by "night," on/off, good/bad, us/them, happy/sad, over/under... seems like "what something is not" is often intrinsic to the concept of the "something."Beautiful. I've thought along similar lines. Following your example, one time in the middle of the night I tried to graph or somehow create a representation of light and dark. Sounds ridiculous, even obsessive, but my idea was that I wanted to represent the progression from light to dark, and dark to light. I came up with a very simple, possibly obvious, conclusion, as I asked myself, "Does light automatically become darkness (and vice versa), or is there some gradation/spectrum?" My thinking was that there is gradation, unless I forced a sort of dualistic framework on my "graph." If so, then light must not gradually become darkness and darkness must not gradually ease into light. Any bit of light means that there is, in fact, light. Any bit of darkness means that dark is present. Of course, this thinking is not really compatible with my bent towards gradation in most aspects of real life, but it was interesting to think in terms of a conception of seeming opposites, and construct two different representations. Yes, I agree that "what something is not" is often intrinsic to the concept of the "something." So, can we even begin to construct a theory or framework for analysis if we don't consider "opposites" dualistically?

[SheepDog]

I don't see one kind of night, or one kind of day. Calling it night or day might be useful, but it doesn't help me with understanding anything. Rather the opposite. Defining things tends to limit understanding. Same applies to similar 'common' distinctions.

We'll soon be teaching our son things like up/down, in/out, day/night, etc., and I look forward to it. I also look forward to discussing more gradated lines of thought as well. That will be a while, though.

[floid]

floid ehm i like your post but,
you present a duality/opposition. unthought/thought, defined/undefined.

Only if you "think" about it, nBT, otherwise there is no duality at all.

In terms of thought noduality is pure nonsense.

I think we are more than what we think, thankfully, since thought merely defines the imaginary surface of things that separates one from another even though no separation exists.
It is difficult for human beings to survive in the material universe without imagining that this separation does exist since it is the crown jewel of our survival instinct.

It is ,however, purely an instinctual urge that some have made the be all and end all of our existence.

[nBT]

hmm i understand
i did not throw away the non-thinkable
and i certainly did not discard it
nor did i want a seperation (so i agree with you that duality is created by thougt, and that it is the base of intellect)
i initially said that duality is a tool. only by seperation can can we gain knowledge. and lose our ties to the 'undefined world'.

[kuranes]

For everybody passionate on this subject/thread, you will want to become acquainted with the work of Ken Wilber. I read his book "A Brief History of Everything" which kind of summarizes many of his thoughts. Younger generations will perhaps find the fact that he believes "boomers" to be a limiting factor in the evolution of society's consciousness appealing. www.kenwilber.com and www.worldofkenwilber.com and www.IntegralNaked.org are some sites to look at.
K

[purple13]

The extent to which I accept dualistic thinking is the yin-yang symbol of taoist belief-
and it's a circle. Paradox solved.

Okay, this is freaky. I was reading along in this thread, and I was thinking duality was like two points opposite each other on a circle. Then I read your reply. wow.

[Xenophon]

Wow, I go away for a few days and I come to find a 5 page discussion on dualism. Hooray!

Anyways, I actually have to write an exam soon, so I'm not gonna spend to much time writing a big message here, but I think there are a few points I would like to make about the beginning of this thread.


Obviously the mind and body do not exist on parallel planes. When certain things go wrong with your body, things can go wrong with your mind. Your mind can influence how your body heals.
I think you are more arguing for the dualistic idea than against it here. From my understanding of dualism, opposites are dependant on each other, they cannot possibly exist independantly. Some people mentioned this later in the thread, but I guess I wanted to make it clear that dualism is not about exclusivity, it is about connections. That seems to be the major point that people bring up when they say they don't subscribe to a dualistic way of thinking.


New Age folk seem to like dualist metaphors. Transcending and the like.
I think that we have had this discussion before, but I think there is a big difference between taoism and buddhism in this way. Buddhism looks to move beyond the dualistic nature of humanity (Dependant Co-origination) towards Emptiness. I can see this as a form of trascending, I also don't believe it is of any use at all. Taoism is more about recognizing the dual nature of everything and acting in a certain way through this understanding (Wu-Wei). Wu-Wei promotes acting through the Yin, which is a yielding, reactive, and transformative force. I think this idea is very powerful, but I also don't subscribe to it. However, I have run out of time and I have to go to an exam now. I'm gonna write some more when I get home though.

[Xenophon]

Ok, I got to school and realized that my exam is at 2:00, not 12:30 as I thought, so I am going to spend my extra time productively by posting a new message on the forum!

As someone mentioned earlier, I think that dualism stems from the idea that everything is defined by what it is not. People have gone into that in depth in this thread, but I think taoism recognizes something beyond the existance of dual pairs, it tells us that there is a positive and a negative aspect in each pair. The positive aspect is the active, existing part. The negative aspect is the lack of that aspect. Light is a good example. Darkness is not something in and of itself, rather it is a lack of light. Nothing can be completely light, just as nothing can be completely dark, and colours are created through a complex mix of lights at different wavelengths. Seeing the colour red is just as much a function of the perception of light waves at the lower end of the visible frequency band as it is the lack of light waves at the upper end of the frequency band.

After contemplating the idea of dualism for a long time I came to the conclusion that human consciousness is an inherently positive thing. It perceives things that exist, not things that don't exist. I don't think that it is possible, nor do i think it is desirable to try to mentally go beyond this limiting factor, rather it is enough to acknowledge the fact that we are limited as conscious beings in this way.

[floid]

After contemplating the idea of dualism for a long time I came to the conclusion that human consciousness is an inherently positive thing. It perceives things that exist, not things that don't exist. I don't think that it is possible, nor do i think it is desirable to try to mentally go beyond this limiting factor, rather it is enough to acknowledge the fact that we are limited as conscious beings in this way.

It is not possible to mentally go beyond duality because duality is a precondition for the operation of intellect.

I believe it is a mistake, however, to equate consciousness with thought or intellect.

We "know" far more than we can think or say.

Sady many have lost touch with that broader consciousness within.

Intellect is the tip of the iceberg projecting above the water into the egoic mind and gets far more attention that it deserves.

Perhaps this partially explains why our species is technically advanced while being morally primitive.

We know how to do lots of stuff but have little inkling of why any of it should be done or what the repercussions of the doing will be.

[Sackanaka]

Okay, this is freaky. I was reading along in this thread, and I was thinking duality was like two points opposite each other on a circle. Then I read your reply. wow.
*high fives purple13*

Too bad just saying it like I did doesn't really explain anything or show that I understood anything. :/ oh well!

[Lee]

I am too lazy to read all of the posts, but I see a few inherent contradictions in dualism that prevent it from being useful as an all-encompassing philosophy.


For dualism to be correct everything has an opposite that is also true, these opposites are in continual flux. But where is the line drawn, do we both simultaneously exist and not exist? how can there be any half-way pointin existence, it's a fact that things do or do not exist, dualism would not allow for this. Unless the philosophy is not considered all encompassing, but this very much depends on personal definition and interpretation. I guess the question is - Are axioms exempt.
What is the opposite of dualism? that would also necassarily be true, would it not? thus disproving itself... and so on and so on, it would just prepetuate forever. Drawing it as a sphere or a circle would not resolve the paradox, because it must also not be a shere at the same time.
If everything is dualistic, how do different systems interact with each other, dualism creates a closed conlict of opposites, how does everything interact with everything else if only it's opposite works against it. I think forces tie these things together in a non-dualistic sense.
I have heard it said that the universe has handedness, I do not fully understand this but doesn't it mean that if dualism were correct everything would be in favour of one side? (not so much a critisism of dualism, rather a question)

[SheepDog]

I don't think of concepts addressed under the word 'dualism' as "an all-encompassing philosophy". I don't think there is such a thing, to be honest.

Having said that, I do find thinking about it to be useful, although I agree that it is not definitive.

[Lee]

I don't think of concepts addressed under the word 'dualism' as "an all-encompassing philosophy". I don't think there is such a thing, to be honest.

Having said that, I do find thinking about it to be useful, although I agree that it is not definitive.
Where is the line drawn?

It has to be drawn somewhere other wise you end up with loads of contradictions and paradoxes.

[SheepDog]

But there ARE contradictions and paradoxes in the universe (for lack of a better term), so long as you're going around drawing lines and trying to contain ideas. It's the need to draw lines itself that limits understanding, and is the source of the paradoxes, not the universe itself.

Things are what they are, no matter what ideas we try to apply to them. Labeling, or categorizing is not the same thing as understanding.

There's a Zen saying, "don't confuse the finger pointing at the moon with the moon itself." If a concept like dualism alludes to something and facilitates understanding, then it is useful. But the concept is not the same thing as the thing that it describes. Arguing about the concept is like arguing about the finger, and is missing the point.

BTW, I don't have a sense of ownership of these ideas. I'm just trying to articulate one way of looking at them. It's not important to me that anyone agree, and I don't have the need to be right about the ideas that I'm presenting. They're just ideas. We're here to share ideas (I hope).

[Lee]

If a concept like dualism alludes to something and facilitates understanding, then it is useful.
Does that mean it should not be questioned or improved?

Just because a philosophy or theory offers us understanding does not mean it is true either.

I ask for lines to be drawn not so much because I expect them to but rather because theere seem to be certain things that dualism cannot be applied to... such as existence, as I wrote in my other post. Maybe no clear demarcations will be made but there are certainly aspects of the entire idea that I am critical of, even though on the surface it looks like it might make sense... but correlation is not causation.

[SheepDog]

Does that mean it should not be questioned or improved?
Of course not. I included that assumption in my earlier statement that it wasn't all-encompassing.


Just because a philosophy or theory offers us understanding does not mean it is true either.Certainly. I agree wholeheartedly, and am sorry if I wasn't clear about that earlier.


I ask for lines to be drawn not so much because I expect them to but rather because theere seem to be certain things that dualism cannot be applied to... such as existence, as I wrote in my other post. Maybe no clear demarcations will be made but there are certainly aspects of the entire idea that I am critical of, even though on the surface it looks like it might make sense... but correlation is not causation.
I've tried hard to not give the impression that I am proposing a concept like Dualism as anything more than just a set of ideas. If you're saying that Dualism doesn't define existence, then I can only say that I've been agreeing with you all along.

[Lee]

Of course not. I included that assumption in my earlier statement that it wasn't all-encompassing.

Certainly. I agree wholeheartedly, and am sorry if I wasn't clear about that earlier.


I've tried hard to not give the impression that I am proposing a concept like Dualism as anything more than just a set of ideas. If you're saying that Dualism doesn't define existence, then I can only say that I've been agreeing with you all along.
Sorry, I wasn't arguing with you really... I was just posting to whoever may be reading.

[Clara]

I for one am glad that we tend to find it annoying, to find ourselves cozily agreeing with one another for too long. :P


Just because a philosophy or theory offers us understanding does not mean it is true either.
That's a thought beautifully said.

There are concepts that are true only in limited circumstances, or with limited applications.

It can be an easy step, to then draw globalized inferences, or parallels which may be logical, even plausible, yet false.

SheepDog wrote : "Things are what they are, no matter what ideas we try to apply to them. Labeling, or categorizing is not the same thing as understanding."

Yes. Except, understanding is ( only ) another way of perceiving. ( I suspect that SheepDog will agree. If so, rest assured, there are plenty of other topics where we can disagree. *making a note to find some* )

I disagree with the notion that through "questioning or improving," everything can be reworked into a philosophy. ( I'm not assuming, either way, whether this argues with Lee's thoughts. )

[nBT]

I am too lazy to read all of the posts, but I see a few inherent contradictions in dualism that prevent it from being useful as an all-encompassing philosophy.


For dualism to be correct everything has an opposite that is also true, these opposites are in continual flux. But where is the line drawn, do we both simultaneously exist and not exist? how can there be any half-way pointin existence, it's a fact that things do or do not exist, dualism would not allow for this. Unless the philosophy is not considered all encompassing, but this very much depends on personal definition and interpretation. I guess the question is - Are axioms exempt.
What is the opposite of dualism? that would also necassarily be true, would it not? thus disproving itself... and so on and so on, it would just prepetuate forever. Drawing it as a sphere or a circle would not resolve the paradox, because it must also not be a shere at the same time.
If everything is dualistic, how do different systems interact with each other, dualism creates a closed conlict of opposites, how does everything interact with everything else if only it's opposite works against it. I think forces tie these things together in a non-dualistic sense.
I have heard it said that the universe has handedness, I do not fully understand this but doesn't it mean that if dualism were correct everything would be in favour of one side? (not so much a critisism of dualism, rather a question)



1 the line is only visible from either side. not from both sides. the line is an horizon. youll never reach it, but constantly see it. an infinite amount of energy will have to be put into reaching that line.
2 one or not-one (many). dualism is an illusion. dualism is a way of seeing the world, it excludes attempts to alter its structure. finding an opposition for dualism iterates it one step back
3 how about not calling this conflicts, but relationships? at least the philosophy apllies to more of the world.
4 dunno

dualism can be a trap. zen-trap.