[MD] dualism redux

[Ham Priday]

Ron, Horse, Kevin, Craig, et al --

A variety of opinions have been offered on this topic, and while everyone
seems to agree that dualism must be reduced to a monism, there is little if
any agreement as to what a dualism is.

For example, Ron said:
> Dualism, from my point of view, is any formal system
> of thought or behavior that approaches reality as if it
> were divided into parts.  Subject/object metaphysics is
> clearly dualistic.  Science and mathematics as well as
> religious and political institutions are dualistic.

He also thanked me for something I never said:
> [I]f a person approaches reality as if it were of separate parts
> or finite (thank you Ham for making this distinction) then they
> are behaving dualistically.

Horse said:
> Intellectual patterns of value are Dualistic
> The Metaphysics of Quality is Dualistic

Kevin said:
> [T]here's reality (one part) and
> there's the system that points to reality (second part).

Ian said:
> Lila is the whole, ZMM is the part which contains the whole.

Let me say first that dualism always denotes two (as in "dual").
Philosophical dualism is the theory that reality consists of two irreducible
elements or modes.  It does NOT mean "divided into parts", "finite",
"patterned", or two types of institutions, such as science/math,
religious/political, or reality and an ontology "that points to it".  (And
Ian, a part cannot contain the whole.)

Although the word first appeared in 1700 to denote the religious dualism of
good and evil, and more recently by Leibniz to distinguish the actual from
possible worlds, its philosophical use has followed the platonic tradition
of "mind and matter", culminating in the Cartesian theory of "thought and
substance" -- basically the S/O duality.

Obviously any two things, processes or events can be paired and considered a
duality.  But there is no duality in the experienced world as sharply
defined as subject and object.  This is the dualism of most concern to
philosophers.  I've tried to emphasize the significance of this fundamental
dualism by defining it as "Being-Aware", stressing the fact that it is
really a "dichotomy" because the contingencies are mutually exclusive,
contradictory, and yet co-dependent.

The reaction from this group is that I'm plugging "egotism", resurrecting
Descartes' Cogito, failing to grasp the Quality concept, and even leaning
towards Quantum probability.  Actually, all I'm in effect saying is, "Look
fella's...Existence isn't being that has thoughts; it's knowing that there's
being."  If you can discern the difference, you might just begin to
comprehend existence as the experience of a subject rather than the
evolution of an object.  That's the Essence of Essentialism.  Is it the
Quality of the MoQ??

Cheers,
Ham