[MD] dualism redux (Kevin's response to Ham, Part 1)

[Kevin Perez]

Hello Ham,
 
> 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.
 
I'll have to go back to that.  Thanks for mentioning it.
 
> 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.
 
You're telling me what you heard me say.  What I meant was what I said.  The
reality I am speaking of is that which is everything that existed, exists and will
exist, the undifferentiated source, the great I AM.  Non-dual thought and action
is realizing this and being one with Reality.
 
> As I pointed out, a dualism or duality denotes polarity involving only two
> modes or contingencies.
 
<snip>
 
> No one can deny that reality as we know it is a dualism.
 
Oh but they can and they do.  But I think I understand what you mean.  You're
saying "reality as we know it" is differentiated existence?
 
For me, there is more to reality that what I can know intellectually.  Feelings are
a good place to start.
 
<snip>
 
> 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.
 
You've clearly given this a lot of thought.  I can't say I understand what you
understand.  But I'll read on.
 
> 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.
 
Interesting.  I can see this means a lot to you.  And so I'll respect it because
I respect you.  How would someone like me find meaning in this?
 
> (The dynamics of this ontology are explained in my on-line thesis at
> www.essentialism.net/mechanic.htm#reality.)
 
I'll read it and get back to you.
 
(end of part 1)
 
Thanks Ham.
 

Kevin

 
---------------------------------
Need Mail bonding?
Go to the Yahoo! Mail Q&A for great tips from Yahoo! Answers users.