[MD] dualism redux (to Ron)

[Kevin Perez]

Good morning everyone!
 
Ham wrote,
 
> I should have known better.  It was Kevin, not you, who 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.
> 
> Kevin 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.
 
Thanks for mentioning this Ham.  Yes, I said that.  I was referring to something
you posted on the "the MOQ and its environment" thread.  On 25 Feb you wrote,
 
     "Kevin is right -- if finite existence is non-dual and is not other than
     absolute reality."
 
I was thanking you for making the distinction between finite and infinte.  I then
applied that distinction to a description of how people see reality, i.e., as finite
or infinite.  I found myself stuck with oneness / seperateness language.  I said,
"yes" when I read your finite / infinite distinction.  You may not have intended its
use in the manner I applied it.  Nevertheless, it worked for me.
 
You went on to say,
 
     "But existence is empirically dual and not absolute.  However, according to
     Cusa's first principle, the primary cause (absolute reality) is non-contradictory
     and is therefore not other to anything derived from it."
 
Sounds like you see reality as finite, non-dualistic and not absolute.  I would
describe it as infinite, non-dualistic and absolute; infinite in the way it defies
definition and non-dualistic and absolute in its oneness.
 
Thoughts?
 
Feelings?
 

Kevin
 

 
---------------------------------
Don't be flakey. Get Yahoo! Mail for Mobile and 
always stay connected to friends.