I really thought this thread more appropriate to 'Philosophy' but i didn't see one...so...
I have no idea? I do wonder though which would be more beneficial to hold in one's head as a 'philosophical world view'.
I really thought this thread more appropriate to 'Philosophy' but i didn't see one...so...
I have no idea? I do wonder though which would be more beneficial to hold in one's head as a 'philosophical world view'.
Why have mutually antagonistic views about monism and dualism?
We originate inside a single source. We leave this single source and arrive at one of an infinite number of destinations. No longer at the source, our departure creates a dualism. The mother and child in an umbilical dualism (as it were). And once cut, in aspiring - often perspiring - independent dualism. The female child dualist (with dependency) and the male child dualist (with dependency) extend into adult female monist (with independence) and adult male monist (with independence), respectively ... and these two monist independences then find each other to create a new monist independence (once more with a dualist dependent beginning).
Elucidating further, dualism is nested inside monism ... and is born once it leaves its nest. It exists briefly as dualist energy (dependent child), evolves into monist energy (independent adult), returns to dualist energy to reproduce, incubates as dualist energy until a new monist adult energy is produced, which then returns to dualist energy to reproduce, incubates as dualist energy until a new monist adult energy is produced, which then returns to dualist energy to reproduce, etc. etc.
The cycle of sons and daughters begetting sons and daughters ... is just the cycle of dualism and monism. IMO.
Pax
Last edited by Zook_e_Pi; 01-20-2014 at 01:45 PM.
Adam Bomm (01-20-2014)
At some level undoubtedly true...
Zook_e_Pi (01-20-2014)
Another compelling view of the grapple between monism and dualism, IMO, is that the Universe has coexisting monist and dualist design (and sanctuary??) ... but we can only manage the dualist design because it is real, whereas the monist design is virtual. Some people find comfort in the imaginary monist sanctuary ... and others (most of us) in the real dualist sanctuary.
beginBloviation
Put in another way, the mathematics of one coexists alongside the mathematics of two (as it were). Question then begs, why can't the mathematics of two be reduced to the mathematics of one? Good question. The easy answer is that the mathematics of one does not actually exist, or if it does, exists only as 'null or virtual mathematics'. The system of mathematics, after all, is relational. The mathematics of one lacks most of the (relational) field properties, whereas the mathematics of two contains all the field properties. Here, a set with the elements 0 and 1 has two elements ... and belongs to the mathematics of two. So if the mathematics of one does not physically exist in the known Universe - e.g. exists in virtual form only - then does monism physically exist in the known Universe? Here, I exclude higher Universes from consideration.
I would hazard that monism does not exist in any form that humans can materially negotiate; more the further, that dualism is the lowest resolution that we can see. We might intuit monism, even aspire to it ... but we can never reach it in our human form. So why bother trying? I mean, why not be content with handling what we can handle. Dualism gives us something palpable. Monism gives us something imaginary.
end
Pax
Adam Bomm (01-21-2014)
But, in fact, there is a realm where mathematics fails and i suspect that is where we will find the virtual, not so virtual 'reality'. We can find the definition of ethereal exemplified by 'Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle', 'The Church-Turing Thesis' in its nondeterminism result and the nondeterministic properties of Chaos Theory. Perhaps, this is where Monism meets Dualism and sends dualism to its waterloo.
Since they are both in our heads I'd suggest its not really anything we have a choice about. The belief these are somehow different issues existing externally of us makes us believe there's a choice.
In a street fight? One is inclined to say dualism, many vs one. Then again dualism would be all over the place and couldn't focus on the fight.
But actually it would be boxing one's own shadow.
One gets self developed enough and you start finding a lot of the old dependables start failing....I wonder if that's the fabled zero point. Where one is spiritually at the point where our ancestors were when trying to figure out how to harness fire, then evolved from there. You have nothing to navigate with anymore and have to sorta feel your way along.
Doesn't it really have to be one or the other....truly, I think i would go with Monism, even though, i've been a long time devotee of Dualism. Perhaps we 'perceive' dualism but that's the illusion. That's the big trick...the oldest trick in the book...Nyuk, Nyuk, Nyuk.
Its either one way or the other, sometimes its both, sometimes its one, sometimes its the other, sometimes its neither of the two....we have different dimensions to us and those are just a couple....we'd have a much better idea about 'external' dimensions, if we had better insight to inner dimensions.
A dimension isn't a place, its a unit of measurement. Why do people keep describing it as a place instead of a space? Duality?
And Neither is about wholeness or integration, its about unnecessary boundaries to program ourselves with. Wholeness embraces a concept of no boundaries that transcend the limits of monoism and dualism. Things work better when they are integrated. Dualistic more than likely means one aspect (or more) are illusionary or delusionary in nature but monoism might be a first step in the right direction but its still not wholeness.
Like...When people think duality they think, frex, spirit vs ego, rather than ego integrates with spirit. People assign ego-ic value to truly clear spiritual things, and spiritual values to ego-ic things.
Perception.
Adam Bomm (01-24-2014)
yeah, i agree... that's good