:boggle:
Printable View
:boggle:
Give me a little bit more to work with here, figurefly! :lol:
I know that there's a struggle for me in associating with the Wiccan community, in a similar sense. I dislike binaries in the sense of requiring all things to fit in two categories like male or female, good or bad. We've had problems at events where a facilitator tries to separate men and women using vague-sounding terms, and that can backfire pretty badly. At the same time, a viewpoint of duality can help us keep in mind that "the masculine" and "the feminine" (and everything in between!) are important -- both in contributing to the world around us and within our own personalities. Similarly, the nature of the universe (and the divine) contains both good and bad and neither and every shade in between. Without dual focus, it can be easy to only emphasize some traits as important and ignore all others, especially in a spiritual practice.
Or are you speaking more in terms of "us versus them," where one person will look for any excuse (ex: a spelling error) to invalidate the other person's position in their own mind?
Samael, I'd say no to both those suggestions, simply because I can't draw anything from her initial post.
But yeah.. Give us something... Anything! :P
Okay, I'll give it a try now.
What I'm talking about (to give very simple examples) is like, the never-ending war of determinism/indeterminism, the never-ending debate on whether god exists or not, the never-ending two sided anything.
Can we free ourselves from dualistic thought patterns? Is it in our nature to think this way? And is it in the nature?
I can't find words. It's almost like I'm thinking without words. I can't tell and it's frustrating. :sniper:
In that case, I'd say that this tendency is built in to the human brain, but it can be overcome. The "war" you speak of comes from each of us picking a side, and then stereotyping members of the other side as having a specific set of traits. That are 100% wrong. It takes a different part of the brain to recognize that we're using those stereotypes and switch to our reasoning abilities: We're Only Human...: The Neurology of Stereotypes
I wouldn't say that this is a dualism issue, though, as the problem doesn't surface from there BEING two sides so much as that each person picks a side and then is unable to recognize the points that make sense from the other viewpoint.
The war and the debate I'm talking about is the war and the debate that is going on inside. How can this be overcome? By not caring/not searching?
So the thought pattern is that one or the other must be true? To my knowledge, there are two ways to deal with this: pick a side, or embrace ambiguity and ambivalence.
You can guess which path I prefer, because it allows me to continue to question.
A very short version: What you say makes no sense to me. I think nobody ever thinks dualisticially, if I correctly understood what you meant by "dualistic". *This sounds a bit harsh, I have friendly intentions! And my aim is to explore ideas. I am simply too lazy to make it sound more friendly/less confrontational* = )
Long version:
There are things that people think about where the answer is not "it's either this side or that side". It can be an open question, like "What happens when a star explodes?" There is nothing dualistic about it. "Does god exist or not?" I'm not sure if that's a proper question, because there can be many gods, or the thing that people think about when they say god may not exist but a different kind of god might exist, you know? Sometimes it's not useful to see a question as a matter of 1 side being true or false.
"And is it in the nature?" What the hell does that mean? xD
"Is it in our nature to think this way?" It seems that on the surface we do think this way, but when you actually look at why you ask a question, it's more complicated.
"Can we free ourselves from dualistic thought patterns?" I am already free of dualistic thought patterns and I don't think I ever suffered from it.
I'll try to give an example of how I think, I hope it makes sense and maybe it helps you answer your question. So when I thought "Should I respond to this thread?", it was clearly a yes or no question. But it's not like I was continuously going back and forth from yes to no to yes to no. I ask myself several questions: is this interesting, do I already have a view on this, if not, do I want to/care enough to/want to spend energy to form an opinion? This goes back to whether it's interesting. What does she actually mean, what did Samael say? If what Samael said made no sense, should I try to correct him or just ignore him and focus on figurefly's question? So even though I started with a yes or no question, there is nothing dualistic about my thought pattern. I don't know what to call it or how to describe it, but it's not at all dualistic.
I'll continue: Hmm, I think I have an idea of what she means. *writewritewrite* Nah, that's not quite right. I don't get it, screw this, I want to watch Flying Circus and continue eating this carrot. *later on* What about this.. *write* So here I am. Nowhere did I actually answer "Should I respond to this thread?" Looking back, I'm not even sure what exactly the function of that question was, maybe all it needed to do was give me a little push in a certain direction that seemed interesting. If right now after some thought I realized that all this was nonsense, I might say "well screw this I don't want to think anymore", I would delete this respons and the answer will be "no". But then minutes later I might develop some curiosity and I will want to elaborate on my idea and maybe share it, and then it will be yes again. I just went in a direction and had different questions and decisions where the initial question is not relevant anymore.
Did this make sense or did I totally miss the point?
Just for the record, duality, as it is understood in philosophy and religion, anyway, has nothing to do with what you guys are talking about.
Simply put, duality is nothing more than the perception that the world is composed of two basic entities: mind and matter. In other words, a dualistic perspective sees the world (matter) as something separate from themselves (mind). A non-dual perspective is one that understands that mind and matter are ultimately the same thing, and interact not as separate entities but units of a greater whole. Dream yogis, BTW, seek a non-dual perspective in their quest to better experience their LD's: a non-dual perspective is extremely helpful in LD'ing, given that dreams are perfectly non-dual events (everything in them is of the dreamer).
The other classic use of the term "duality" is the theological one, which uses it to say that there are two mutually antagonistic principles in the universe: good and evil. This is closer to what the OP describes, but it is still not really the same, I think.
So: I don't think duality has much to do with the binary stuff you guys are talking about. Sure, there can seem to be two (or more) sides to pretty much any consideration, and getting confused or misguided about which side to choose (or, rather, deciding that a side must be chosen, since Ginsan makes a good point when he says we do not live in a necessarily binary world) is certainly worth discussion. But binary/black&white relationships are really not what duality is about.
... just thought I'd point that out...
Sageous, I take your point and btw, I knew that... I thought it was irrelevant to this discussion as long as we all knew what was being meant by duality in this context. I still think it's irrelevant, but maybe figurefly, Samael and/or other readers will appreciate the side note...
"Ginsan makes a good point when he says we do not live in a necessarily binary world" I don't agree with that description of what I said, I also don't think that that's what this discussion was about. I'm not entirely sure what figurefly was trying to describe, but I think it was not about the binary or nonbinary nature of the universe, but more about a tendency to think in a certain way. A way she calls dualistic.
About your descriptions of duality/non-duality, I feel many questions coming up, but I won't mention them. Because I am curious about what exactly figurefly is trying to convey (I really don't know :chuckle:), because she often has interesting things to say. Also because both kinds of duality that you were alluding to seem profoundly boring to talk about.
^^ Again for the record, I did assume you knew what duality/non-duality actually meant, Ginsan. Also, the descriptions I gave were pretty standard: you could probably find something similar in any dictionary or philosophy reference book.
Interesting, thank you for posting :)
I'm sure that your descriptions are very close, and I would not even be surprised to find out that they are dead-on, centre of the bullseye. But I still think that I would be doing an injustice to those ideas if I were to make a judgement based on that description, without doing more research. But the problem is that they seem boring enough to prevent me from doing that further research :P
^^ Yes, I suppose they are boring... on their surface. But the doors that achieving a sense of non-duality opens is well worth a bit of dry research, I think.
Sometimes (hell, most of the time) the best things in life start out with really dull information gathering. But dues must be paid to get what we want, don't they?
I'm not sure... I actually don't think so xD But... Perhaps this little exchange will someday bubble up and I will think "hmm, let's look up this non-duality thing", and I will thank you for it. I do have some sympathy for it. I also feel like I am starting to get a better and better grasp of the selfless nature of consciousness, that there really is no experiencer, there is only the experience which is taking place in this consciousness. Now that I think about it, I remember Sam Harris describing that as non-duality. Now you have my attention :P So is that the same as non-duality? When I look at an apple there is not really an "I" sitting in my head looking at the apple, but there is a consciousness, and in that consciousness is appearing (or happening/taking place) the experience of seeing an apple. It's devoid of "I", and since Sam described that I've been casually thinking about it every now and then, and while meditating I've been considering this concept of selflesness or non-duality. And this idea that there is no self having an experience, there is only experience, is making more and more sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sageous
Did I lump two things, selfless and non-dual, together while they are not the same? It may be the case that they are similar, but on closer inspection they may turn out to be slightly different. I haven't thought about it enough to really have an opinion about it, but sort of vaguely in my head, I have always considered them as synomys. So perhaps you can forget my earlier accusations and educate me a bit :biggrin:
edit: You can see a change of heart in this post. At the beginning I was basically saying why I didn't want to dive further into it but that I may remember this and look it up later. And then a few sentences after that I have jumped off a cliff or plank and am swimming in the subject xD
@figurefly,
It could just be another aspect or dimension of the same thing. When people say a cube is a 3 dimensional object, they are right in a way, but in another way a cube has an infinite amount of dimensions (or perspectives to measure it from) another dimension of the cube can be it's taste or roughness.
Thoughts are the same, some thoughts have both a dimension of good and a dimension of evil among many other things.
In this way everything is everything. There is a degree of love within hatred, it may sound abstract but there is even a degree of 'hotdog-ness' in hatred . Literally anything and everything can be used as a dimension of a thing.
Hmm to escape from it? That's interesting. Can you escape from the very nature of things? Assuming anything is possible, The short answer is yes. How? Perhaps it requires thinking from a perspective that is outside of classic logic.
If on a simpler note you are trying to stop an endless barrage of debating thougts, meditation may help clear the mind. Regular sessions will condition your mentality.
A simple meditation can be sitting cross-legged listening to quiet zen music while you focus on your breathing to quiet your thoughts
From what you described, I think it would be safe to lump the two together.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ginsan
I'm a little leery of using the term "selfless," though, because to me it seems to imply an abandonment of identity, of the fact that there is still a "You" present, even though it isn't a separate consciousness sitting inside inside your head during the experience. It also might be confused with the ethical use of the term selflessness, depending on who you are talking to. Otherwise, the two words do seem synonymous.
... Not sure if any of this has something to do with the OP, though...
Been watching this thread and appreciated the thoughts on duality. But thinking of the OP's concern, I think it's more about competing ideas/values in one's thoughts. I think the most precise term for this would be cognitive dissonance. I suffer this very often as well. I'm trying to form something constructive to comment on it, but the words don't arrive at the moment.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sageous
No... this has more to do with you using more than one definition for the word "dimension". Your idea relies on the fact that the meaning of the word can be switched on-the-fly to the meaning that is most convenient for your argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wisher
The first definition you use is the one that refers to a measurement one can get from an object's physical form or the physical form itself. "When people say a cube is a 3 dimensional object."
The second definition you use is the one that refers to the number of aspects or features something has. "another dimension of the cube can be its taste or roughness".
Despite the fact that "dimension" is spelled the exact same way when it means two different things in different contexts, you cannot treat it as the same word in an argument when referring to both meanings periodically. It's illogical, it doesn't make sense. You are not technically wrong in saying that a cube also has other "dimensions", but you fail to make a distinction between the two definitions you are using. Yeah, you do say that a cube has other dimensions "in another way", but you cannot then use this idea as basis for a set of logic that you make use of in the thoughts that follow (yet you do).
I have to admit, I have no idea what you are trying to say here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wisher
Once I gather my thoughts together, I'll post back. I like this thread.Quote:
Originally Posted by figurefly
Hey Sageous, I definitely understand where you're coming from with your definitions of duality. I think that we've mostly been talking about binarism in this thread (and the cognitive dissonance that can bring on, as sisyphus said), and agree that even with the "mutually antagonistic principles" definition, duality isn't a word that fits very well.
I do find this definition of duality interesting, though, because it seriously depends on the religion:
This fits pretty close with—and is simultaneously the complete opposite of—the view of duality that comes up in the religion that I practice (Wicca, and the relationship between it and I can best be described as "it's complicated.") In this philosophy, humanity's view of the universe can be summarized as a series of dualities: black and white (and every shade in between), night and day (and all the hours thereof), god and goddess (both of which we embody aspects of.) By emphasizing both elements of the duality, we can have a better view of the whole, because if we emphasize only the whole, we have a tendency to slip into emphasizing only one half of any given duality (such as our culture's tendency to consider masculine the default.)Quote:
Originally Posted by Sageous
So, non-dual philosophy downside: potential to slip towards one side by accident. Dual philosophy downside: potential to strengthen the binary by emphasizing both sides. Solution: adopt a simultaneously dual and non-dual philosophy? :lol:
Wisher, more specifically, you seem to be confusing the words "spacial dimension" and "aspect/property". When you say a cube has 3 dimensions it means that it has 3 spacial dimensions. The first one being up/down, the second spacial dimension is left/right and the third spacial dimension is backward/forward. You need those 3 dimensions to make a cube. So when you use dimension to mean spacial dimension, you have to commit to that meaning of the word, and you can't say that the 4th dimension is its taste :P
Also, you may have sensed some irritation in snoop's comment, and I am sympathetic to his irritation. Why? Well.. It's because of the way you said things that are not exactly true, but kind of vaguely true, there is some truth in them, but it's not specific or clear what it means and it doesn't actually contain any information. Let me give you some examples:
Fruits and soccer balls are very similar, because they are both round. But just like some fruits are not round, some soccer balls are also not round. The beat-up, unusable soccer balls are not very round and they are thrown away. But there are many fruits that are not round but are perfectly healthy and edible and nutritious. So if a soccer ball is round, it's a good soccer ball but for fruits it doesn't matter. Except if you have an orange, that has to be pretty round to be good, right? The same goes for humans. Some humans are generous and it's wonderful, but if you are generous with your punches, it's a horrible thing. So is generosity or roundness good or bad? It depends on the context. So everything depends on context, you know? Sometimes your thoughts are dual and sometimes they are singular, because sometimes you get kicked in the nuts and there is a single thought coursing through your head (the pain). But then other people feel the pain at the same time as anger toward the owner of the foot that made contact with your genitals, so your thoughts are dual. It changes from situation to situation, so you can't really say anything for sure, there are no rules, you just need to figure it out for yourself.
I'm in a slightly sadistic mood, if I weren't, I wouldn't let anyone read that. A part of me is apologizing xD So Wisher, you get the point? This probably sounds condescending and arrogant, but if you want to say something sensible, it has to be clear what it is you are trying to convey. You cannot confuse meanings of words.
When you say something like this:
What exactly does this mean? What do you mean by "dimension"? I think you mean "aspect", or that "a part" of the thought is good and another aspect/part is evil. If that's the case, just say "some thoughts have both a good and a bad part". Which would be true, but it's perfectly obvious to any thinking person. So 1) it's not crispy clear what it means and 2) it doesn't contain any sensible information.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wisher
Again, I apologize for sounding arrogant and condescending, and now I'll even sound patronizing. I wouldn't say this if I didn't think that you are an intelligent, honest person who cares about a good discussion. And I am relying on your good character to take my words as constructive criticism = )
o_O I don't care if u get mad, review ur concept of a dimension.
I'm the one on the right.
:gator:
Yeah; I've been leaning toward cognitive dissonance as the actual theme of this thread... we may never know for sure, though, because Figurefly seems to have stepped away from this thread,Quote:
Originally Posted by Samael
Here's an interesting thing:
That's actually not such a funny thing to say, because you are correct. And how do you adopt this balance? By seeing the world in a truly non-dual way:Quote:
This fits pretty close with—and is simultaneously the complete opposite of—the view of duality that comes up in the religion that I practice (Wicca, and the relationship between it and I can best be described as "it's complicated.") In this philosophy, humanity's view of the universe can be summarized as a series of dualities: black and white (and every shade in between), night and day (and all the hours thereof), god and goddess (both of which we embody aspects of.) By emphasizing both elements of the duality, we can have a better view of the whole, because if we emphasize only the whole, we have a tendency to slip into emphasizing only one half of any given duality (such as our culture's tendency to consider masculine the default.)
So, non-dual philosophy downside: potential to slip towards one side by accident. Dual philosophy downside: potential to strengthen the binary by emphasizing both sides. Solution: adopt a simultaneously dual and non-dual philosophy?:lol:
Traditionally, a non-dual perspective really has nothing to do with binaries at all. Duality, philosophically speaking, is not about black and white, etc.; it is about separating your self from reality and your place in it, where you believe that your mind is a thing existing inside your head that is completely removed from the general workings of the universe. In other words, a dual perspective assumes that the universe is something different and removed from their consciousness, that there is an "I" observing the world from a separate place -- a different, unique existence. A non-dual perspective understands that that "I" is actually an integral element to the world/reality, and is in a state of constant interaction with it.
So, an actual non-dual perspective would be ideal for including both the binary and non-binary philosophies in its worldview, because it can understand more clearly that everything in the universe is interconnected, so things like binary or non-binary are elements of an overall picture, and, being just elements that are supplementary to the non-dual whole, a slip toward either would be most unlikely.
All that said: The Wiccan tenets may have changed the meaning of duality from the traditional one I am using, so in their context everything you say may be correct -- just so you know I am not arguing against your beliefs.
Please follow your own advice. Both Ginsan and I have pretty much spelled out what you are doing wrong. Did you just completely ignore what we wrote because it doesn't align with your beliefs, did you even read the posts at all, or are you legitimately unable to comprehend your error on the matter?Quote:
Originally Posted by Wisher
Samael, Sageous, I always enjoy reading your thoughts and appreciate those who strive to keep the topic moving forward.
So, I do think there's two things going on here. On the one hand, we have dualism in the metaphysical sense, which is about (in my own words) the uncertain connection between subjective perception and objective reality (which, depending on one's philosophy, may entail the total denial of one or the other). On the other, there is the binary nature of so many things that create conflict (good/evil, left/right, light/dark, etc).
Coming from a Buddhist point of view, I think there's an interesting bridge between the two. I'll try to give an abridged version as I suspect the audience is small and those who would be interested in it are probably already hip to these ideas, even if not expressed in Buddhist terms.
In Buddhism, the non-dualistic mode of consciousness is that we are conscious only in the present. There is no past or future. There is no self or other. There is no subject and object. Just pure experience. But there is also dualism. And in everyday life, dualism is the main mode of consciousness, if for no other reason that habituation. In the dualistic mode, our mind creates concepts, labels, associations, memories. These serve a practical and evolutionary purpose. It helps use to learn, organize, and speculate on our experience to improve our survival. But, over time, the mind churns on its own creations to make new creations, drifting further and further from subjective, in-the-present experience. The by-product of this is illusion. That is, the mind creates things and we come to believe they are "real" and even become attached to them. But straying too far from reality can create problems. Which is what bridges to the other topic of conflict.
So, the dualistic mode creates illusions. And what's more, this process operates according to each individual's experience. So each person accumulates their own illusions, different from everyone else. This leads to conflicting ideas between persons. And also conflicting ideas within each person. Conflict leads to negative emotions (like cognitive dissonance among others). Negative emotions are suffering. And so, we've circled back to the first noble truth of Buddhism: life is suffering.
Now, how to escape it? Well, there's a Buddhist view on that too, but that's a topic others can pursue on their own, and that's enough from me for now.
Well... I don't know if that's fair to say. She often seems to make decent efforts trying to express herself/convey her ideas, so maybe she is still processing things? Or she is just busy. Or we completely missed her point and went off in a totally different direction and she doesn't know how to respond xDQuote:
Originally Posted by Sageous
This post is a little bit disjointed; I usually strive for clarity, but it's late and I wanted to respond to this topic before I forgot. Let me know if anything doesn't come across well.
I think that the way it subverts some mainstream expectations was funny to me. That sense of push-and-pull is essential to my worldview, but I don't think I'd managed to frame the contradiction in exactly that way before.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sageous
I've always found the idea of trying to touch the real, underlying universe (however briefly) by abandoning our preconceived notions and ideas a compelling one. I've actually been playing with this in terms of empiricism versus constructionism. We've constructed all these schema that are essential to the way we view reality, but we want to measure what we can to get closer to the actual reality, but what's to say that the underlying reality is more real than the one we experience? I think that embracing contradiction might be vital to puzzling that one out.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sageous
Ah, there's the issue with simply accepting the constructionist idea of our personal illusion as reality. I knew it would pop up.Quote:
Originally Posted by sisyphus
I wonder how much of the problem comes from the fact that we're tempted to portray our personal illusion as Truth? I mean, if the three of us are in our own little bubbles, we're each trying to communicate what the inside of the bubbles look like through the insufficient medium of words. But as long as I acknowledge that the inside of my bubble is probably genuinely different than the inside of your bubble, and the inside of all of these bubbles is different again from the world outside of the bubbles, we're not likely to take any of it personally, and don't see much of a need for conflict.
Ending of suffering? Definitely a big topic!Quote:
Originally Posted by sisyphus
If the Wiccan traditions are anything, it's "eclectic," so I expect that if you grabbed a bunch of different Wiccans from different groups, they'd all give you a different definition of what those tenets are. Either way, it's always fun to define our terms and figure out where each of us is coming from, so it's all good. You've given me a bunch to ponder about the way that us earth-worshippers use the idea of duality compared to other philosophies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Sageous
I have enjoyed reading threw the posts and love the way this topic has been embraced. I am someone who very often sees an interesting valid view point in a post or opinion put forward and in that way find and stumble upon my own beliefs and standpoints ( Schema's I think this is called here ) as they widen and verge/change as I take it in and give time to ideas...
In one way for me right now it is obviouse there are two - me and my life, things, friends, likes, desires,needs, annoyances, fancys etc and yet when I relax and take a view from my direct experience right now it feels as if I could be at peace with every single thing on/in/ around/ outside/ within this me this planet ... As if we are REALY are one - but yet I speak "of " so it's asif its all separate from me :alien:
The OP said - Can one escape duality and talking/thinking in circles?...
I wonder - Is it talking and thinking that often makes us feel we are going in circles thus giving us a feeling sometimes we want to " escape "?
Do we need to talk/think with some wisdom or view of non- duality to help this?
How paradoxical - that's all I got right now
Nope. People just confused terms and then started talking about duality/non-duality because they felt like they had something interesting to say. People including myself. Even though it was off-topic. Not that I mind..Quote:
Originally Posted by Patience108
Thanks Ginsan :D in that case It seems terms have been confused wonderfully - helping, in adding a possible wider look around the subject of interest :tongue:
Given that I am understanding the spirit of the topic, the idea is that you cannot escape the inevitability of looking at anything in terms of black and white. Something is, or is not. The obvious answer here is that you can escape it by seeing what you are looking at in various shades of grey. However, when you more closely inspect each shade of grey you divide something into, you are ultimately replacing black and white with a values of grey that are higher and lower with respect to one another. It is still the same thing. Duality is a result of order. Any method of categorization, no matter how complicated its system of categorizing things will ultimately lead you to what we are calling here, a duality. Whether something is or isn't, even if our classification of that "object" or phenomenon has multiple things it is or is not. If it isn't obvious already, this is completely parallel with binary. This doesn't mean that we are in a simulation or any other off-the-wall conclusions you might be able to draw from that statement, it is merely a reflection of how we naturally function. Computers function the same way we do because we made them, it's what makes sense to us. It may actually be a result of how reality functions, but we don't have any way of experiencing reality outside our own realm of perception, so to make any statements on that would really just be an exercise in pure speculation and confirmation bias.
I've got more ideas, but these are the only coherent ones I can provide at the moment. I need to think about what I want to say a bit more.