[MD] dualism redux (to Kevin]

[Ham Priday]

Hi Kevin --

On 2/26 you wrote:
> 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.  And as
> an intellectual conception of a reality that by its own
> admission is greater than itself - it states that Quality is
> the source of everything, i.e., reality is Quality and vice
> versa - the Metaphysics of Quality is dualistic.

The reason I included your definition, along with those of Horse, Craig, and
Ian, in my 3/2 comment on this topic was to demonstrate the futility of
collective efforts to "reduce" something as fundamental as Duality when each
contributor has a different conception of what it means.

Thus, when you say...
> [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.

...you are talking about multiplicity (or differentiated "phenomena"), while
others are defining a primary split or division of Quality.  By failing to
pin down your premise at the start, you're not going to arrive at an
acceptable  conclusion.  That's why I maintain that precise definitions are
prerequisite for clarity in philosophical discussions.  Pirsig's division of
everything into levels and patterns is an artifical differentiation that
only compounds the problem.

As I pointed out, a dualism or duality denotes polarity involving only two
modes or contingencies.  Positive/negative, being/nonbeing, subject/object,
good/evil are dualities.  A multiplistic system like a toybox or a universe
of finite things is not.  Either is a pairing of religion and politics, or
science
and mathematics.  For me duality is the primary division of existence that
is fundamental to ontology.  What is this division?   If you're an orthodox
MoQist, your duality will be Static/Dynamic, and you will view reality by
those terms.  But Pirsig doesn't define "static" as unchanging and "dynamic"
as movement; he wants them to mean something else -- some quasi-mystical
inference that isn't readily comprehensible an ordinary person (like me).

What is readily comprehensible (because it's empirically experienced) is the
duality of Being/Aware.  Not only is it a duality, but being and awareness
are so inextricably linked that one cannot exist without the other.
Logically
that makes the duality a true "dichotomy".  Epistemologically one can't
confuse these terms.  Awareness is the subjective perception of objective
beingness.

No one can deny that reality as we know it is a dualism.  That's why I said
"Kevin is right -- IF finite existence is non-dual and is not other than
absolute reality," adding that existence IS a dualism.  But there's no
reason to "resolve" it unless we want to know where it comes from.  Mr.
Prisig doesn't say.  He has no ontology (theory of beingness), and he tells
us that metaphysical definitions "destroy the concept."  Which leaves the
MoQ open to speculation.

Empirical experience reveals that every phenomenon has a cause -- even
phenomenalism itself.  Everything relates to an antecedent; therefore the
duality we call existence must have a source.  The simplest source -- one
that avoids an infinite regression of prior causes -- is itself uncaused and
non-dual.  Some say that can only be Nothingness.  But since nothing can
come from nothingness, I submit that the primary source is a Oneness with
the potentiality to actualize "difference" by denying (negating)
nothingness.  This creates a dichotomy in which awareness is provisionally
separated from what it perceives as an otherness.  And the bond between
Awareness and Otherness is Value.  So that what we subjectively experience
as Being is what our intellect objectivizes from Value.  (The dynamics of
this ontology are explained in my on-line thesis at
www.essentialism.net/mechanic.htm#reality.)

> Sounds like you see reality as finite, non-dualistic
> and not absolute.

No, EXISTENCE is finite, primarily dualistic, and secondarily multiplistic).
The ultimate SOURCE of existence is absolute (undifferentiated).

Commenting on my assertion than man is the Choicemaker, you say:
> Correct to a point.  The concept of tabula rasa goes
> only so far.  Ham, I can't agree with you on this because
> I see people as more than biological machines, or blank
> slates at birth.  The more correct view, imo, is both nature
> and nurture.

I don't know what being "correct to a point" means, since correctness and
incorrectness is another dualism.  People are organic creatures with
proprietary value-awareness and some degree of intellect.  Stripped of their
organic being they are nothing -- not even a blank slate.  Being-aware is an
irreducible dichotomy, as I said above.

I also threw a rhetorical question at you:
> If the universe is a "moral system" programmed
> to evolve toward "betterness," then what role does
> the individual play in this world?

To which you replied:
> It's both/and, imo.  Both the cosmic connection
> established by Reality and the moral system
> established by people.  It's about the interaction
> between both.

The "cosmic connection" is Value (see above).  How individuals perceive
Value determines how society shapes its moral system.  But relative values
are as provisional as our social interaction; they are finite perceptions of
the infinite source which disappear when we cease to exist.

By the way, I continue to exist in the northeastern suburbs of Philly.
(Downingtown is about two hours west of here on the turnpike.)

Thanks, Kevin, and have a great weekend.
-- Ham