What is your issue with Dualism?

reply to post by NOTurTypical


OMG..... I can't believe it!!!

We agree on something!

Seriously though, it does play into nature well.

In ancient Taoism the Light Body formation is the way within, the kingdom of heaven lies within and was actually called the precious pearl. And this is what Christ meant. However it is thought of by scholars and adepts, it truly means the permanent passing of tests, no longer needing to come back without memories, (or another code for this is graduation/ascension).

Originally posted by BlueMule

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by Akragon

 

As a Christian, the problem is a very basic one. Dualism implies (or requires, depending on the interpretation,) counterparts, and there is no counterpart to God.

As a Christian, then, do you feel that there is an eternal ontological subject-object dichotomy between you and God?

If so, then you are the counterpart to God as subjective is the counterpart to objective. In that case you are a dualist because you believe the subject-object dichotomy is ontologically absolute.

You're saying that there are dualistic roles, I'm saying that God, as a being, has no counterpart. That's not the same thing. I am not a counterpart to God, even if my activities are counter to his.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by BlueMule

Originally posted by adjensen
reply to post by Akragon

 

As a Christian, the problem is a very basic one. Dualism implies (or requires, depending on the interpretation,) counterparts, and there is no counterpart to God.

As a Christian, then, do you feel that there is an eternal ontological subject-object dichotomy between you and God?

If so, then you are the counterpart to God as subjective is the counterpart to objective. In that case you are a dualist because you believe the subject-object dichotomy is ontologically absolute.

You're saying that there are dualistic roles, I'm saying that God, as a being, has no counterpart. That's not the same thing. I am not a counterpart to God, even if my activities are counter to his.

I don't recall using the word 'roles'. Please don't put words in my mouth.

It's really very simple. Do you believe that the subject-object dichotomy is ontologically absolute?

If yes, you are a dualist and you must believe that God has a counterpart. The counterpart of being is non-being, the counterpart of object is subject, the counterpart of creation is creator.

If no, you are a monist and you are God deep down underneath the harmonious and amusing illusion of dualism. Not the hallucinatory you that you think you are. The you that you really are.

reply to post by BlueMule


The I guess I have no idea what you're talking about. Drop the five dollar words and ask your question in a clearer manner.

reply to post by adjensen


If you believe that Heaven is the highest level of reality, and that both you and God will be there, then you are a dualist because in that case you and God would comprise the ultimate subject-object duality. There would be no higher level of reality in which that dualism is transcended.

If you believe that there are different levels of Heaven, and that the highest level of Heaven corresponds to the idea of the Godhead or Brahman or Keter or the crown chakra, then you are a monist because such a level as that transcends the subject-object dualism. At that level of reality you and God are one. Subject and object are one. So simplistic dualism is false because on some level it is transcended. Dualism is only true if it is never transcended.

Such a level as monism can't be talked about because words create distinctions. But there are no distinctions at that level. So to talk about it creates paradox.

"The words of truth are always paradoxical" -Lao Tzu

That is the level of reality that some mystics reach. The level that transcends the ego-self, space, time, everything. Mystics such as Jesus. Then they come back into dualism but they are transformed. In Buddhist terms mystics who reach that and come back to teach instead of staying there are Bodhisattvas.

Originally posted by BlueMule
reply to post by adjensen

 

If you believe that Heaven is the highest level of reality, and that both you and God will be there, then you are a dualist because in that case you and God would comprise the ultimate subject-object duality.

Let's say that I believe this.

Why does the fact that both God and I are there (along with other entities -- angels, cherubim, other people, and so on) make it a duality?

If the definition of counterpart is:

coun·ter·part noun \-ˌpärt\

Definition of COUNTERPART

1 : one of two corresponding copies of a legal instrument : duplicate
2 a : a thing that fits another perfectly
b : something that completes : complement
3 a : one remarkably similar to another
b : one having the same function or characteristics as another (Source)

We can see that #1 is obviously not the case. I do not "fit" God and I do not complete him, so #2 is out, and I am neither similar to God, not share his function or characteristics, so the final definition is not valid.

How am I a counterpart to God?

Originally posted by adjensen

Why does the fact that both God and I are there (along with other entities -- angels, cherubim, other people, and so on) make it a duality?

Because God and not-God (you) would coexist at the same level of reality (Heaven)... which would be the highest most ontologically real level. So you would complete each other because you, as not-God, as the observer of God, are only not-God insofar as God is God. Heads is only heads insofar as tails is tails.

But on a higher level they are one coin.

Originally posted by BlueMule

Originally posted by adjensen

Why does the fact that both God and I are there (along with other entities -- angels, cherubim, other people, and so on) make it a duality?

Because God and not-God (you) would coexist at the same level of reality... which would be the highest most ontologically real level. So you would complete each other because you, as not-God, as the observer, are only not-God insofar as God is God.

But God doesn't need completing and I'm not sure that I do, either, in the sense that you're defining it.

I have a sandwich here for lunch, along with a bowl of soup. Did the sandwich need completing by having a non-sandwich (the soup) along side of it? Why wasn't it completed by a different non-sandwich -- my cup of coffee, the plate it is on, or me, for that matter?

Sorry, but it sounds like a game of semantics in an effort to justify belief in something that isn't valid.

Originally posted by MamaJ
reply to post by NOTurTypical

 

OMG..... I can't believe it!!!

We agree on something!

Seriously though, it does play into nature well.

You're into Quantum Physics?

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by BlueMule

Originally posted by adjensen

Why does the fact that both God and I are there (along with other entities -- angels, cherubim, other people, and so on) make it a duality?

Because God and not-God (you) would coexist at the same level of reality... which would be the highest most ontologically real level. So you would complete each other because you, as not-God, as the observer, are only not-God insofar as God is God.

But God doesn't need completing and I'm not sure that I do, either, in the sense that you're defining it.

I have a sandwich here for lunch, along with a bowl of soup. Did the sandwich need completing by having a non-sandwich (the soup) along side of it? Why wasn't it completed by a different non-sandwich -- my cup of coffee, the plate it is on, or me, for that matter?

Sorry, but it sounds like a game of semantics in an effort to justify belief in something that isn't valid.

If not-God and God coexist at the highest level of reality then some kind of dualism is true. That is your basic position, from what I've gathered.

If only God exists at the highest level of reality then some kind of monism is true. That is my basic position.

Christian Monism

Some Christian theologians are avowed monists, such as Paul Tillich. Since God is he "in whom we live and move and have our being" (Book of Acts 17.28), it follows that everything that has being partakes in God. Dualism with regard to God and creation also barred the possibility of a mystical union with God, as John Calvin rejected[citation needed], according to Max Weber in The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of Capitalism. Such a dualism also leads to the problematic position of positing God as a particular being the existence of which can be argued for or against, failing to recognize God as the ground and origin of being itself, as in Acts 17, or in the Hashem, YHWH, meaning "He causes to come into being." Such a view was called by Tillich panentheism: God is in all things, neither identical to, nor totally separate from, all things.

reply to post by Akragon

Judgement.

It entraps, whereas absolute love and forgiveness (like that of Christ) liberates and sets us free.

Dualism leads to separation from God as the all-in-all.

It separates us from God from the natural order, from each other and even from ourselves (true self).

The real Reality and flow of life isn't dualistic, so it's a lie too.

Originally posted by NewAgeMan
reply to post by Akragon

 

Judgement.

It entraps, whereas absolute love and forgiveness (like that of Christ) liberates and sets us free.
Dualism leads to separation from God as the all-in-all.
It separates us from God from the natural order, from each other and even from ourselves (true self).
The real Reality and flow of life isn't dualistic, so it's a lie too.

Dualism. By intent or by accident, the former expands the arguement to greater known truths; the latter becomes Machiavellian, "The Prince" all over again; tranmuted into a nature of division as to undermine and eventually destroy. This involves not only material city states but ideologies of the theocratric, sophistic and Socratic type. This creates ideas of 'doubt' so disharmonious that potencially can slowly corrode EVERYTHING. So much for 5 dollar words.

Originally posted by adjensen

Originally posted by BlueMule
reply to post by adjensen

 

If you believe that Heaven is the highest level of reality, and that both you and God will be there, then you are a dualist because in that case you and God would comprise the ultimate subject-object duality.

adjensen
Let's say that I believe this.
Why does the fact that both God and I are there (along with other entities -- angels, cherubim, other people, and so on) make it a duality? How am I a counterpart to God?

Because you disagree with it; which is the intention. Subjective objective is not a duality, it is THE reality; no escaping or solving it, just a natural state of being. Why would you think a negative force could cancel a positive or visa versa? They work together as quantum to describe a force not yet understood and undiscovered.

reply to post by Akragon


dualism exists because we exist.
An ant does not know dualism as it does not have self awareness.

Consciousness produces dualism. Without conscious beings there would be just monism.

More correctly dualism just exists in our consciousness/mind.

reply to post by NewAgeMan


That said, without a certain degree of dualism we would not be moving around in space enjoying the experience of life, but it's the kind of thing better left to God, while we learn how to enjoy life and the Reality as it is, reunited where there's unity in diversity and leave it at that.

Originally posted by Akragon
First a quick definition...

Dualism (from the Latin word duo meaning "two") denotes a state of two parts. The term 'dualism' was originally coined to denote co-eternal binary opposition, a meaning that is preserved in metaphysical and philosophical duality discourse but has been diluted in general or common usages. Dualism can refer to moral dualism, (e.g. the conflict between good and evil), mind-body or mind-matter dualism (e.g. Cartesian Dualism) or physical dualism (e.g. the Chinese Yin and Yang). Dualism holds to the belief that there are two elements of existence: Physical and Spiritual.

en.wikipedia.org...

I will not express my thoughts on this issue... this is just a question to anyone who would like to discuss this matter... Though my opinions may come out as this discussion progresses...

So my friends...

What is your issue with duality?

Serious answers only please.... trolls will be ignored

There should be no issue...
Dualism is percieved...it is not an expression of two (dualistic) concepts, but is the same concept viewed from different points...it appears to be that way in our locum, so that we have a referential system (which is not needed in other locums - and is not experienced this way)...beginning/end, up/down, in/out, etc...the concept happens to be useful to navigate this locum (up to a point), but is useless in states of non-time, non-location, non-judgement...in essence, cannot be used as reference - where more and more total states of unity exist...it wasn't necessarily 'designed' this way, but, appears more as a consequence of the melding of items within grosser states...like a fortunate/unfortunate accident...

Focussing on duality is focussing on greater and greater hair splitting exercises (with associated irrelevant questions)...it is, in effect, working from the specific to the general (very rarely a good idea)...

A99

reply to post by BlueMule

Since God is he "in whom we live and move and have our being" (Book of Acts 17.28), it follows that everything that has being partakes in God.

Rather than a god being something we make out of silver or gold, build a house for, as in a temple, and serve, as in giving offerings in the form of food which could be eaten; we need god who alows us to live. A real god does not need help from us to exist.
Paul here in Acts is portrayed in this bit of New Testament historical fiction, giving a pseudo-philosophical argument that their so-called gods are based on a false idea of god, while his concept of a god was better by reflecting the situation of man in the cosmos in a more realistic manner.