Why the Duality?

[Bender]

How can duality exist in a reality which encompasses the whole?


Such concepts as Good/Bad, Light/Dark, Strong/Weak, Light/Heavy, Nothing/Matter - or other concepts deemed as being opposing entities - are not concrete. They are in fact two sides of the same coin, metaphorically speaking. Or even better, they are two perspectives, in a three dimensional world.

For, Good and Bad are merely preferences, ideals.
Dark is not the opposite of light, it is merely the absence of it.
What is weak can also be strong. Like a bamboo cane in a storm. The deep-rooted trees around it get uprooted easily, while the bamboo can bend and is flexible, adapts to the wind and survives the storm. Or water, that adapts to any condition, yet it can erode continents.
Light-hearted comments can be taken seriously.
Scientists don't use the word 'nothing' they use the prefix 'anti-'. So anything that has to do with the opposite of matter is anti-matter. Which still incorporates 'matter' paradoxically.


These are just examples, that point out the major flaws in our own human-created-concepts, of a dual existence.
I have done varied research into the philosophical ideals/teachings of the western/eastern world. In this I have found that western ideals have a stronger influence on a dual-concept teaching. Whereas, eastern philosophy focuses on a more fundamental principle that good and bad exist coincidentally.

What would it be that we could acknowledge these facts and act upon, and apply them to our everyday lives. Free from opposing ideals. Free from opposing concepts. Free from the conflict within our own minds?

 

[EDouble]

i always view shit in duality, some times as complete oposites but most of the time even w/ these opposites as the same input output, or some shit. hard to explain w/ no example Ill have one in near future cause thats how i view shit a lot of the time Excellent thread

 

[EDouble]

Dark light, same relationship as the words Yes no. no is the absense of her saying Yes, but are complete opposite in these respects

 

[EDouble]

ideals, can oppose one another because nature of ideals. but whilst this they will often be in the same vain in a dual parrell type relationship,or co existence more than existance more than existance can be fabric of an ideal

 

[Bender]

i always view shit in duality, some times as complete oposites but most of the time even w/ these opposites as the same input output, or some shit. hard to explain w/ no example Ill have one in near future cause thats how i view shit a lot of the time

Input/output - another example of opposites. Though this isn't where I want this to go, describing all the different opposing concepts. That would lead the conversation into a hole.

If you could describe how input/output are one and the same, or why you view things in a dual concept, maybe that would open up the topic a little more.

Dark light, same relationship as the words Yes no. no is the absense of her saying Yes, but are complete opposite in these respects

Of who saying yes/no?

Yes and no are antonyms, opposites. their meanings are not synonymous though they do have similar uses. Their meanings are exclusive.

ideals, can oppose one another because nature of ideals. but whilst this they will often be in the same vain in a dual parrell type relationship,or co existence more than existance more than existance can be fabric of an ideal

Ideals differ from reality. Peoples ideals are part of a denial of reality and a want to change/control it.

When I say 'my ideal life wouldn't have ideals' - that statement right there is a paradox. It is a statement with dual opposing truths. How can my ideal life have no ideals, if my ideal life is to have a life without any ideals?

Zen deals a lot with paradox, and believes that truths form is paradoxical. That truth does have a dual nature like most things. But that truth is not referred to as having two parts, it is called a whole. That's why 'yin yang' is called so. Not 'yin' AND 'yang'.

 

[Preach]

using the term "duality" is actually a simplification of something that is a lot more complex than opposing sides. first you talk about good and bad simply being preferences. it would be more accurate, imo, to say that they are relative. then you say why not break free from the opposing concepts that create a conflict in our heads by simply realizing that there is no such thing as opposing sides, only wholes that can be seen from different angles.

which causes which is irrelevant, but the reason why we say that good and bad are relative is that we have that inner conflict. alternatively, we have that inner conflict because all truths are relative. people are different, their ideals are different, so their take on good and bad will be different. if nobody had a conflicted mind we would essentially be robots and execute actions based on conditions. having an inner conflict is what encourages you to look at things from another perspective, and understanding why people are different. being a philosopher type, i would think that you would appreciate duality

 

[Bender]

I picked this topic up from another philosopher - Bruce Lee.

In his writings he writes:

"The perfect way is only difficult for those who pick and choose. Do not like, do not dislike; all will then be clear. Make a hairbreadth difference and heaven and earth are set apart; if you want the truth to stand clear before you, never be for or against. The struggle between "for" and "against" is the mind's worst disease."

He talks about duality being the problem, and goes on to state that the best action to take is not to conform or reject to duality (conform/reject being another dual concept), but rather to transcend it.

"To understand this fully, one must transcend from the duality of 'for' and 'against' into one organic unity which is without distinctions."


So whoever is making tags saying that I am dumb can kiss my ass, I am on some Bruce Lee philosophy type shit.

 

[S O F I]

I picked this topic up from another philosopher - Bruce Lee.

In his writings he writes:

"The perfect way is only difficult for those who pick and choose. Do not like, do not dislike; all will then be clear. Make a hairbreadth difference and heaven and earth are set apart; if you want the truth to stand clear before you, never be for or against. The struggle between "for" and "against" is the mind's worst disease."

He talks about duality being the problem, and goes on to state that the best action to take is not to conform or reject to duality (conform/reject being another dual concept), but rather to transcend it.

"To understand this fully, one must transcend from the duality of 'for' and 'against' into one organic unity which is without distinctions."


So whoever is making tags saying that I am dumb can kiss my ass, I am on some Bruce Lee philosophy type shit.

Seng-Ts'an?

Anyway, take what you just quoted and apply it to terrorism, for example.

 

[Cooper]

This thread made my head explode. maybe i'm not cut out for words of wisdom.

 

[Bender]

Yes, Seng Ts'an. Bruce lee borrowed from other sources.

We've barely discussed duality, and the transcending of it.
Already you want to apply it to terrorism?
I will leave that with you.


The subject here is philosophy, not political acts.

 

[Bender]

This thread made my head explode. maybe i'm not cut out for words of wisdom.

Lol, how so?


That's what I like about eastern philosophy, it's mind blowing! Especially Zen, Taoism.

Get your head around this ...

Do nothing and nothing gets done. When nothing gets done, nothing is not left undone. With nothing undone, what else is there to do? Nothing? You have already done that.

 

[S O F I]

Yes, Seng Ts'an. Bruce lee borrowed from other sources.

We've barely discussed duality, and the transcending of it.
Already you want to apply it to terrorism?
I will leave that with you.


The subject here is philosophy, not political acts.

You read philosophy books and pick up on concepts that seem cool. But, can you apply them to our world?

Okay so, a world without duality. What does it looks like? How do you transcend duality in regards to terrorism?

"I will leave that with you." That's what a philosopher would say, but one that knows the answer for himself. You don't know the answer.

 

[Chronic]

There's a difference between actual opposites and what we usually call opposites. People like to categorize things as to make sense of them. For convenience's sake, light and dark are opposites. Things like good/evil are indeed more based on the individual. Unless you're religious there are no absolutes, that's what makes it so hard to choose sometimes. Most non-idiots will realize that these terms are really just for the sake of conversation. Otherwise every conversation would last at least 30 minutes. "Hello" "Are you saying hello to me?" "Yes I am" "But how do you know I'm really here?" "What an intriguing question my good man." "Yes" "Indeed"
Philopsophy is usually only concerned with the hypothetical. There is a lot of wisdom in what Bruce Lee said but it shouldn't be taken literally.

The egg and chicken question is good and all but there's an answer to that question. THE FUCKING EGG. Unless my concept of evolution is fucked the real changes happen during the moment of conception and the moment of birth, not during life itself. The ancestors of the chicken fucked, they gradually changed until an egg opened and a chicken came out. And yes that fucking tree makes a sound.

 

[Bender]

You read philosophy books and pick up on concepts that seem cool. But, can you apply them to our world?

Okay so, a world without duality. What does it looks like? How do you transcend duality in regards to terrorism?

"I will leave that with you." That's what a philosopher would say, but one that knows the answer for himself. You don't know the answer.

I don't aim to apply anything to our world. I do aim to add ideas/theories to my own philosophy to help me gain a more fundamental understanding of the world.

So, I wouldn't be trying to paint a picture of a world without duality. Rather I would be hacking away at a sculpture, instead of adding paint to canvas. Chipping away at petty ideals, likes/dislikes, distinctions, categories, forms, beliefs, attitudes - until I am left with the raw underlying material that I am satisfied with.



I don't quite get what you mean in - transcending duality in regards to terrorism. I know what terrorism is, it is a political act. It is born of Idealists. Terrorism has nothing really to do with what I am discussing here. Maybe what you need is a good thread about sociology/politics.

 

[Chronic]

A terrorist to some is a freedom fighter to others. I think he means that if you can't apply these terms you practically can't have any nouns. We need a concept, a meaning before we create a word. No such concepts, no words.

 

[Bender]

People like to categorize things as to make sense of them. For convenience's sake, light and dark are opposites. Things like good/evil are indeed more based on the individual. Unless you're religious there are no absolutes, that's what makes it so hard to choose sometimes. Most non-idiots will realize that these terms are really just for the sake of conversation.

I have thought of something along these lines before. It would co-inside with what preach said about opposites being relative, and that this creating of dual-concepts is a way to rationalise ... (?) For sakes of conversation.

This brings me back to the problem of rationality and relativity. I still haven't disproved my theory on lateral thinking that:

[Thinking out of relative terms seems to be the most rational way of thinking.
Whereas, thinking in relative terms seems to be irrational.]

This transcending of duality would be to think out of relative terms about something that is relative so as to make it rational.

 

[Bender]

If a terrorist is a freedom fighter, why do they engage in acts that would put them in jail?

Why? Because a terrorist would rather put his life on the line than accept the reality that he is not free, and never will be free. We are all humans 'trapped' in the same condition. Fighting for freedom, is like protesting for peace.

 

[Chronic]

You digress.

 

[Preach]

You misunderstand.

Living a normal life, you come to many points where a third external party will force you to take a stance on a matter, whether you like it or not. Take terrorism for example. What would you say about your opinion about terrorists if there were no opposites such as good/evil? What would you really think of a terrorist if you didn't have a duality concept such as good and evil? What would you do if you saw a terrorist? The list of questions goes on and on, but the fact of the matter is that if you regarded nothing as neither evil nor good, you wouldn't be inclined to stop the terrorist from committing an act of terrorism, even if it meant saving innocent lives, because neither would be good nor evil deeds, and you would have no encouragement to do any of them.

Now let's assume we're in a world where no duality concepts exist, and everyone believes in everything and nothing, in a whole, however you would like to put it. Regardless of beliefs, human genes are different for everybody, and two individuals are prone to do different things throughout life. Some of these things will affect you, some won't. Now here comes the tricky part. Like it or not, but the concept of duality is embedded in our ancient instincts. Take the instinct of survival, for example. Your body will react negatively upon detecting pain, and your instincts will have you react in a defensive manner, to protect yourself. In this certain scenario, there is no such thing as no duality. Dying is bad and living is good, is what your instincts believe, regardless of what you believe.

How will you differentiate between being hit and being stroked with no sense of duality concepts?

I see your idea and I could explore it hypothetically too, but like Chronic said, don't take what Bruce Lee said literally. It can't be applied to everything in a human life, and having no sense of duality in some situations but not in others wouldn't be consistent enough to be considered a better alternative than how we think today really.

 

[Preach]

And to the "living is good, dying is bad" part, please don't use those same terrorists you talked about above as an argumentative example. They are disillusioned. If you consider being disillusioned a better way of living than the way you live right now, I don't know what to tell you lol.