Why the Duality?
- Thread starter Bender
- Start date
My point is that it's hypothetical, like Chronic said, and impractical. The impracticality of it is what Preach expanded upon. it serves no real purpose than to flex your intellectual muscles and feed your ego; like arm wrestling. I can sit here all day and convince myself that duality doesn't exist, but where will that lead me?
I fail to see how the concept of duality will better help you understand the world, aside from realizing that duality is more or less a social construct. We as a people decide opposites, they might not exist in nature. Maybe I am missing something here. So, illuminate me how your understanding of the world is improved by what you quoted.
I fail to see how the concept of duality will better help you understand the world, aside from realizing that duality is more or less a social construct. We as a people decide opposites, they might not exist in nature. Maybe I am missing something here. So, illuminate me how your understanding of the world is improved by what you quoted.
This is a hypothetical discussion. What's good is understanding the concept of duality and how it is applied to things.
A better understanding of duality can then lead to us making better choices when it comes to opposing ideas. Instead of seeing the world in just black and white, we would be more apt to recognize the aesthetic properties of colour and shade, tone and texture. Figuratively speaking.
Like Chronic said, people categorize things. It is this categorizing that creates this duality.
It's as if everything we rationalize can only have two dimensions to speak of. Opposing ones. Weather or not this has to do with the brain being split into two different lobes I don't know. That would be a discussion for psychology.
I just feel that people in general fail to recognize that categorizing things, more often than not, just complicates comprehension.
A better understanding of duality can then lead to us making better choices when it comes to opposing ideas. Instead of seeing the world in just black and white, we would be more apt to recognize the aesthetic properties of colour and shade, tone and texture. Figuratively speaking.
Like Chronic said, people categorize things. It is this categorizing that creates this duality.
It's as if everything we rationalize can only have two dimensions to speak of. Opposing ones. Weather or not this has to do with the brain being split into two different lobes I don't know. That would be a discussion for psychology.
I just feel that people in general fail to recognize that categorizing things, more often than not, just complicates comprehension.
Most people have a sense of good and evil, all the while knowing there is a gray zone in between. I don't believe good and evil are two absolutes by which everything must either be labeled by one or the other. I know there is a gray zone, but i'm gonna stand by that duality is not just a thing in our heads. Even animals will have to differentiate between things that are good and bad, even though they are not sentient beings. Even a microbe will differentiate between the different things it can do/that can happen to it.
Ok so terrorism is bad, is that what you want me to say?
Terror is synonymous with evil, of course it is bad.
The antonym of terrorism is democracy. Now we have a dual concept with which to work with.
Terrorism lacks diplomacy. It is in the interest of a democratic state to be diplomatic; terrorism on the other-hand does quite the opposite. A democracy will resort to evil means in order to fulfil a good purpose, which is in the interest of democracy. A terrorist resorts to evil means and labels them as good, as well as its aims. A terrorist doesn't operate from a diplomatic point of view. Terrorism isn't founded on democracy. Terrorism rejects it.
There seems to be a lack of duality where terrorism is concerned regarding ethical/moral behaviour, democracy and diplomacy. Can a terrorist really be fighting for freedom if he resorts to such barbaric and callous means? A democratic state only goes to war to instil some kind of democratic discipline among its countered rivals.
I don't think much about politics as I'm sure you can gather. I read up on some stuff here and there. These are just a few of my thoughts as you've got me talking about such issues.
Now I've got no idea on what kind of ideals these so called terrorists are acting upon. Religious, maybe. Although it all seems very political, it is lacking in certain areas such as economy. Maybe that's the source of their problems; economical growth.
I still believe the western world has a strong influence on the concept of duality. I believe the eastern world has a strong influence on making duality a whole. I don't know here the middle east fits in here.
Terror is synonymous with evil, of course it is bad.
The antonym of terrorism is democracy. Now we have a dual concept with which to work with.
Terrorism lacks diplomacy. It is in the interest of a democratic state to be diplomatic; terrorism on the other-hand does quite the opposite. A democracy will resort to evil means in order to fulfil a good purpose, which is in the interest of democracy. A terrorist resorts to evil means and labels them as good, as well as its aims. A terrorist doesn't operate from a diplomatic point of view. Terrorism isn't founded on democracy. Terrorism rejects it.
There seems to be a lack of duality where terrorism is concerned regarding ethical/moral behaviour, democracy and diplomacy. Can a terrorist really be fighting for freedom if he resorts to such barbaric and callous means? A democratic state only goes to war to instil some kind of democratic discipline among its countered rivals.
I don't think much about politics as I'm sure you can gather. I read up on some stuff here and there. These are just a few of my thoughts as you've got me talking about such issues.
Now I've got no idea on what kind of ideals these so called terrorists are acting upon. Religious, maybe. Although it all seems very political, it is lacking in certain areas such as economy. Maybe that's the source of their problems; economical growth.
I still believe the western world has a strong influence on the concept of duality. I believe the eastern world has a strong influence on making duality a whole. I don't know here the middle east fits in here.
Edub, is your English always this shabby? I don't mean to criticize, you have me thinking English isn't your first language.
So ...
Think of 'nothing' as a noun. Which is kind of a mind fuck because a noun is a name for a 'thing', not a 'nothing'. You could also think of nothing as an adverb. 'Undone' is an adjective.
This statement plays heavily on the double-negative concept. A double negative in language, just like in maths, makes a positive.
Now there's another example of duality for ya'll
So ...
Think of 'nothing' as a noun. Which is kind of a mind fuck because a noun is a name for a 'thing', not a 'nothing'. You could also think of nothing as an adverb. 'Undone' is an adjective.
This statement plays heavily on the double-negative concept. A double negative in language, just like in maths, makes a positive.
Now there's another example of duality for ya'll
It's hard to explain a taoists perspective on duality. It's not bullshit. A lot of it is simple and complex at the same time.
Take the 2nd chapter of the Lao Tzu's writings which inspired the quote:
LETTING GO OF COMPARISONS We cannot know the Tao itself,
nor see its qualities direct,
but only see by differentiation,
that which it manifests.
Thus, that which is seen as beautiful
is beautiful compared with that
which is seen as lacking beauty;
an action considered skilled
is so considered in comparison
with another, which seems unskilled.
That which a person knows he has
is known to him by that which he does not have,
and that which he considers difficult
seems so because of that which he can do with ease.
One thing seems long by comparison with that
which is, comparatively, short.
One thing is high because another thing is low;
only when sound ceases is quietness known,
and that which leads
is seen to lead only by being followed.
In comparison, the sage,
in harmony with the Tao,
needs no comparisons,
and when he makes them, knows
that comparisons are judgements,
and just as relative to he who makes them,
and to the situation,
as they are to that on which
the judgement has been made.
Through his experience,
the sage becomes aware that all things change,
and that he who seems to lead,
might also, in another situation, follow.
So he does nothing; he neither leads nor follows.
This is not the best translation, but does give a good example of the theme of duality.
Can you look at something without naming it?
Buddha said 'the best weapon is your enemy's mind'. What would be a better way to get at your enemies mind other than splitting it in two?
Do you see now what I am getting at? Now the concept of duality is your minds worst enemy.
Take the 2nd chapter of the Lao Tzu's writings which inspired the quote:
LETTING GO OF COMPARISONS We cannot know the Tao itself,
nor see its qualities direct,
but only see by differentiation,
that which it manifests.
Thus, that which is seen as beautiful
is beautiful compared with that
which is seen as lacking beauty;
an action considered skilled
is so considered in comparison
with another, which seems unskilled.
That which a person knows he has
is known to him by that which he does not have,
and that which he considers difficult
seems so because of that which he can do with ease.
One thing seems long by comparison with that
which is, comparatively, short.
One thing is high because another thing is low;
only when sound ceases is quietness known,
and that which leads
is seen to lead only by being followed.
In comparison, the sage,
in harmony with the Tao,
needs no comparisons,
and when he makes them, knows
that comparisons are judgements,
and just as relative to he who makes them,
and to the situation,
as they are to that on which
the judgement has been made.
Through his experience,
the sage becomes aware that all things change,
and that he who seems to lead,
might also, in another situation, follow.
So he does nothing; he neither leads nor follows.
This is not the best translation, but does give a good example of the theme of duality.
Can you look at something without naming it?
Buddha said 'the best weapon is your enemy's mind'. What would be a better way to get at your enemies mind other than splitting it in two?
Do you see now what I am getting at? Now the concept of duality is your minds worst enemy.
I personally don't base my beliefs on other people's sciptures though. You think we should abolish the concept of duality because of Bruce Lee and Lao Tzu? I don't get what there is to discuss.
You're asking in your initial post if we couldn't lead better lives or have more peace at mind if you dropped the notion of dualities, and all of us have responded with why that is bollocks. Or do you just want to philosophize around the notion of no duality to see what thoughts could be sparked? Because you have to agree that the idea you initially presented, that losing the sense of duality could give you greater peace at mind, got slaughtered pretty quick, no? If there is no duality, you wouldn't be an individual due to your unique nature of thoughts. You couldn't have an opinion that differed from others unless you had more or less information on the subject than them.
You're asking in your initial post if we couldn't lead better lives or have more peace at mind if you dropped the notion of dualities, and all of us have responded with why that is bollocks. Or do you just want to philosophize around the notion of no duality to see what thoughts could be sparked? Because you have to agree that the idea you initially presented, that losing the sense of duality could give you greater peace at mind, got slaughtered pretty quick, no? If there is no duality, you wouldn't be an individual due to your unique nature of thoughts. You couldn't have an opinion that differed from others unless you had more or less information on the subject than them.
It seems wherever there is debate, duality thrives. Maybe that was my first mistake.
I disagree. I think dropping the notion of duality contributes to a clearer perspective on things. A lateral thinker, imo, looks at something without conflicting perspectives of duality, and sees only what is.
Discussing an eastern concept in a western context to westerners could only sound bollocks, lol.
I disagree. I think dropping the notion of duality contributes to a clearer perspective on things. A lateral thinker, imo, looks at something without conflicting perspectives of duality, and sees only what is.
Discussing an eastern concept in a western context to westerners could only sound bollocks, lol.
I said this to edouble in a recent pm ... people don't think that something could be both true and false.
How could something be true? How in the hell can you apply the conception of truth/falsity to something in the first place? Does everything possess the qualities of truth/falsity in the first palce. Or is it something you only apply afterwards ... ?
This is the kind of duality I am trying to get at, answer me this.
How could something be true? How in the hell can you apply the conception of truth/falsity to something in the first place? Does everything possess the qualities of truth/falsity in the first palce. Or is it something you only apply afterwards ... ?
This is the kind of duality I am trying to get at, answer me this.
Donate
Any donations will be used to help pay for the site costs, and anything donated above will be donated to C-Dub's son on behalf of this community.
Members online
No members online now.