The Endless Duel of Dualism

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

RWStanding
Posts: 384
Joined: Sun Oct 09, 2016 12:23 pm

The Endless Duel of Dualism

Post by RWStanding »

The Endless Duel of Dualism
In the past there was commonly a dualism of bigotry with ‘right’ against the ‘wrong’ or evil in the world.
It is the same today but with a different slant.
No doubt basic values may be employed in contrasting ways, but ethical values overall or holistically, does not appear to be dualistic.
The term that has become popular today is ‘phobia’. In the past, when I was younger, it had a sensible place in the lexicon. It signified a morbid fear of something such as spiders – ugh!
Today the term has been taken over by the ultra-liberals and attached to every possible word in order to proscribe everyone and everything that is not ultra-liberal.
We do not burn heretics at the stake today, unless of course they oppose what I describe as individualistic moral relativism.
The fact is – as my philosophy has it – there is not a duality or even a duality with a muddled compromise. There are three end views for society, as against outright social chaos.
To jump right into the deep end of ethnicity or race and culture, the two of which go together.
The ultra-liberal view is that anything that smacks of racism is evil, and racism is virtually anything that is not blind.
In reality real racism is undoubtedly that portrayed in Nazi Germany with a superior ‘race’ set against an inferior race or races. Set against that is not one thing but two. Either the ultra-liberal equality of everyone as individuals in a global race or culture. Or the equality of all societies and cultures, within which individuals may flourish. Overall, those cultures and polities need to be more altruistic than is the case in most polities today.
What is morally ‘right’. The question is absurd. But the alternatives to responsible altruism are probably self destructive in the long run.
Troll
Posts: 120
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2018 1:53 am

Re: The Endless Duel of Dualism

Post by Troll »

Many people think right marriage between any consenting adults, and wrong to deprive anyone of the marriage bond and to thereby condemn them to exclusion. Others find gay marriage unnatural and wrong. It does seem right and wrong, natural or unnatural, healthy or sick are what is in play. So, I'm not convinced by your "absurd" claim. At least so far as one's vague common sense description goes. The simplest case is murder. Now, with many things, it matters a great deal where one was raised, one's education and social formation. But, usually, murder is proscribed and so taken to be wrong in all countries. However, true, its a long story in theory to work out the distinction between murder and killing.

I'm not sure your approach of denying right and wrong captures the reality. Though, I grant, in theory one can grant what you say. Since, for the most part, one's views seem to be a function of one's past. And the possibility for brainwashing, therefore, is infinite. Perhaps the country or planet should be bred to hold the same view. Then, however, I fear unforeseeable difficulties would arise like with Mao's Four Pest plan.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Endless Duel of Dualism

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Troll wrote: Fri Jan 26, 2018 3:35 am Many people think right marriage between any consenting adults, and wrong to deprive anyone of the marriage bond and to thereby condemn them to exclusion. Others find gay marriage unnatural and wrong. It does seem right and wrong, natural or unnatural, healthy or sick are what is in play. So, I'm not convinced by your "absurd" claim. At least so far as one's vague common sense description goes. The simplest case is murder. Now, with many things, it matters a great deal where one was raised, one's education and social formation. But, usually, murder is proscribed and so taken to be wrong in all countries. However, true, its a long story in theory to work out the distinction between murder and killing.

I'm not sure your approach of denying right and wrong captures the reality. Though, I grant, in theory one can grant what you say. Since, for the most part, one's views seem to be a function of one's past. And the possibility for brainwashing, therefore, is infinite. Perhaps the country or planet should be bred to hold the same view. Then, however, I fear unforeseeable difficulties would arise like with Mao's Four Pest plan.
The problem with moral relativism is its basis in continual change that not only prohibits any form of consistently but undermines the values of freedom by disallowing any constant moral structure to exist.

Where there is no moral structure, their is no moral freedom as their is no real choice involved as no transgressions can be made. The only transgression is one of promoting a moral structure, which moral relativists need as a form of opposition in order to exist. This is considering they have no strict moral code of their own except that abolishment of any traditional moral codes.

Hence the obsession with dualism, as an inherent form of polarity that causes the tension necessary to provide a spiritual foundation for progressivism. Why progress if their is peace? Their is none according the relativistic claims as individual moral systems tend to clash and provide a nihilistic tensions that in turn is directed further into anti-traditionalism the gives the people a cognitive dissonance against their present circumstances.

Where everyone lives by their own moral standards their is conflict and tension as these moral system clash and separate into further moral systems. Culture becomes atomized and the human condition is reduced strictly to that of an animal.

The problem occurs, is the relativism leads to a savage form of atheism in which man is strictly an animal that fends for himself. Noone believes in anything but themselves, but they do not believe even in themselves because of the continual physical, intellectual and emotional damage they receive from their neighbors opposing moral system. Relativisim is a negation of morality through a continual individuation of ethics and logical observation.

Did you ever notice that modern logic, hence philosophy, has taken a "x vs. y" mentality or a separation through continual analysis? How much more for the human condition which suffers under such logic?

If logic is merely an observation of order, or structure through inherent symmetry, how can an logical system exist that is premised in continual negation? We see this reflected within the atheists whose continual philosophical stance is one of "everything is evil", yet what is evil but nothingness? Moral relativism is the premise to nihilism, which we already see in full swing, as relativity is negation through particulation. Unity is not allowed under relativism, except in the observation of a ground zero state where all life and meaning suffers stagnation. We can see this reflected in the transmutation of gender into a strictly pleasure promoting sterility that prevents any life from coming into fruition.

I believe, however, that the arguments against moral relativism are already to late as the seed turned into a weed of nihilistic thought which branches not only to moral systems itself but even the sciences such as physics whose obsession is with dark matter, dark holes, "darkness" in general. And why the pursuit of point zero that linear progressive ideology depends upon? It is a hatred for the natural order, for God or any creater whose emphasis on destruction is a means to rebalance the scales and create a measurement system based upon man's wants...not their needs. In a technocratic society, whose emphasis is on subjective luxury based upon ever changing cultural influence, the inability to separate wants from needs will lead to a vacuum state where both nature and God will give in full measure that which man has claimed for his own personal pleasure at the expense of reason and justice.

All dual systems provide the foundation for a synthesis where what existed is separated and recombined. We can observe this with the dualism of capitalism and communism providing the neutral grounds for a technocratic globalism where man is enslaved to perpetual want by a system which says he is not good enough unless he buys "x, y, z".
Troll
Posts: 120
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2018 1:53 am

Re: The Endless Duel of Dualism

Post by Troll »

I think you exaggerate concerning gender. In Plato we read of a city of pigs, who do not go beyond simple satisfaction of bodily needs. However, in essence, the marriage bond stretches beyond this, for Catholicism it is what is worthy of profound esteem and the proper place for sexual life. Why should you say gender is only an issue of pleasure? That is not even true of the bathroom issue, in the claim against dualistic restrooms, if you like, where persons seek higher dignity. Which goes beyond the bodily need to relieve oneself without too much anxiety that would make one physically ill.


Now, why is Capitalism and Communism a dualism? For instance, if one says, Capitalism and Communism have the shared foundation of the theoretical claim that all value comes from labour, but Capitalism claims that the title to this value is not limited to labour, since for instance, there is inherited wealth. Capitalism is legalistic. Whereas, communism, in the Marxian sense, wanted to remove the middleman or exploiter, and give the proper value to the according portion of labour. It is not so much a dualism, but, rather variations on the theme of the belief, value, what humans want or need, or enjoy, the full spectrum, is said to be based in labour. True, these days, some claim equal economic outcome for all persons on the earth is their goal, and this seems like a kind of “communism”. Of course, that does not exhaust the various tattered threads of the conceptions.


I must admit. I'm not sure what your "dualism" means.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Endless Duel of Dualism

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Troll wrote: Sat Jan 27, 2018 3:58 am I think you exaggerate concerning gender. In Plato we read of a city of pigs, who do not go beyond simple satisfaction of bodily needs. However, in essence, the marriage bond stretches beyond this, for Catholicism it is what is worthy of profound esteem and the proper place for sexual life. Why should you say gender is only an issue of pleasure?
Modernity as reduced it strictly only to pleasure. The pleasure of sex is not wrong in itself, but a good thing when kept in context. The moral problem reduces to a disbalance where one degree of an action is seperated from another.

That is not even true of the bathroom issue, in the claim against dualistic restrooms, if you like, where persons seek higher dignity. Which goes beyond the bodily need to relieve oneself without too much anxiety that would make one physically ill.
Is it immoral that one is physical ill because they cannot control something? Much anxiety stems from control issues, which in themselves are character defect...hence the weakness of "physical issues".


Now, why is Capitalism and Communism a dualism? For instance, if one says, Capitalism and Communism have the shared foundation of the theoretical claim that all value comes from labour, but Capitalism claims that the title to this value is not limited to labour, since for instance, there is inherited wealth. Capitalism is legalistic. Whereas, communism, in the Marxian sense, wanted to remove the middleman or exploiter, and give the proper value to the according portion of labour. It is not so much a dualism, but, rather variations on the theme of the belief, value, what humans want or need, or enjoy, the full spectrum, is said to be based in labour.
Yeah but both those variations are reduced fundamentally to "2" or dual dimensions, hence dualism. If there is a third element to the relation it would be triadic, or if a fourth quadratic...etc.

Both are extensions of a median of an industrialized technocracy. Both, Capitalism and Communism appear to be seperated however the exploitation of the other (Capitalists depending on cheap communist labor, and Communists depending on those very acts for propaganda) and the inherent wars with the others that drove their economy, observe both as two sides of the same coin: Technological Industrial Progress as a median dogma.


True, these days, some claim equal economic outcome for all persons on the earth is their goal, and this seems like a kind of “communism”. Of course, that does not exhaust the various tattered threads of the conceptions.


I must admit. I'm not sure what your "dualism" means.
Troll
Posts: 120
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2018 1:53 am

Re: The Endless Duel of Dualism

Post by Troll »

Yeah but both those variations are reduced fundamentally to "2" or dual dimensions, hence dualism. If there is a third element to the relation it would be triadic, or if a fourth quadratic...etc.
It’s because it’s clearer for discussion to state the extremes, even though the reality is infinitely more complex. Not sure there is any case of an irreducible “triade”, one might always insist on placing the third between the first two. I suppose that is a transcendental feature of the human mind.

I would say it is not pleasure, but power that corresponds to the technological essence. But, it is not the power of human beings, but rather that in order to keep up one must always be the most efficient. For example, Putin seems to live for pleasure in a billion dollar house on the Black Sea, yet, if he doesn’t appear to be fit, to be the richest and strongest man, his rivals will immediately kill him. Ergo, if they seize upon more efficacious propaganda, and methods of gaining power, and of warding off the West, and presenting themselves as worthy to the Russians, they would push him aside, but only to continue to serve the unlimited demand for more efficient modes of control. Else, they are lost to those who find them first.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Endless Duel of Dualism

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Troll wrote: Tue Jan 30, 2018 2:50 am
Yeah but both those variations are reduced fundamentally to "2" or dual dimensions, hence dualism. If there is a third element to the relation it would be triadic, or if a fourth quadratic...etc.
It’s because it’s clearer for discussion to state the extremes, even though the reality is infinitely more complex.
It may be more complex but it does not eliminate the fact that all exhibition of force depend upon a polarity, or imbalance. Multiple dualities, present within every degree of phenomena occur and are ever present through such universal phenomena such as altneration, frequency, etc. Even the standard dialectic, in which both of us are a part, are inseparable from a based quantitative and qualitative dualism.

All realities mirror qualitatively and quantiatively numerical dimensions.

Now is there more to life than a strict dualism? Yes, but any even number of dimensions corresponding as being/non-being, thesis/antithesis or 1/0 in themselves are a dualism as that is the foundations for what is even. So even from an infinite number of dimensions, and infinite number of dual dimensions, through evenality, exist as a perpetual flux.


Not sure there is any case of an irreducible “triade”, one might always insist on placing the third between the first two. I suppose that is a transcendental feature of the human mind.


I would say it is not pleasure, but power that corresponds to the technological essence.
And power is not the most primal of the pleasures?

But, it is not the power of human beings, but rather that in order to keep up one must always be the most efficient. For example, Putin seems to live for pleasure in a billion dollar house on the Black Sea, yet, if he doesn’t appear to be fit, to be the richest and strongest man, his rivals will immediately kill him. Ergo, if they seize upon more efficacious propaganda, and methods of gaining power, and of warding off the West, and presenting themselves as worthy to the Russians, they would push him aside, but only to continue to serve the unlimited demand for more efficient modes of control. Else, they are lost to those who find them first.
Troll
Posts: 120
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2018 1:53 am

Re: The Endless Duel of Dualism

Post by Troll »

“And power is not the most primal of the pleasures?”

Hobbes, Yukio Mishima, and even my humble self, am flabbergasted. Point well taken. And yet, English sobriety, in stark contradistinction from the Prussian Rausch, the mania, of a Nietzsche, say this: Power is to have the possibility to do as one likes, rather than to do it. Ergo, one must notice that pleasure is something different from power, power is the essence of the human being as future, or, as “becoming rather than being”. Animals never achieve future in this sense, as bare possibility of which they might pride themselves in not enacting.

Now, with regard to what you say, I must say, is the human limited by the envisaging of all things as either one extreme, or the other. Ergo, hot or cold? It is in this sense that the human being is not the “measure of all things”.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: The Endless Duel of Dualism

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Troll wrote: Thu Feb 01, 2018 12:10 am “And power is not the most primal of the pleasures?”

Hobbes, Yukio Mishima, and even my humble self, am flabbergasted. Point well taken. And yet, English sobriety, in stark contradistinction from the Prussian Rausch, the mania, of a Nietzsche, say this: Power is to have the possibility to do as one likes, rather than to do it.
Would it not be better to control what one likes and dislike altogether? If power is subject to what one likes, is it power?

Ergo, one must notice that pleasure is something different from power, power is the essence of the human being as future, or, as “becoming rather than being”. Animals never achieve future in this sense, as bare possibility of which they might pride themselves in not enacting.
It may be different yet they share a median of commonality through the fact they can mirror one another.

Things we can observe as similarities:

1) Both require one to "lose oneself" either emotional, physically, or intellectually as a form of transcendence or descendance relative to circumstance.
2) Both are dependent upon the exercise of the other. A man who seeks power, but experiences no pleasure becomes weak in his pursuit and loses that very same power. A man who seeks pleasure, over power, becomes weak in his pursuit and loses that very same pleasure.

In these respects we can observe that weakness, or strength, stems from one's ability to fully observe what they are after. Observation is a common median and is a median in itself.


Now, with regard to what you say, I must say, is the human limited by the envisaging of all things as either one extreme, or the other. Ergo, hot or cold? It is in this sense that the human being is not the “measure of all things”.

By viewing in extremes alone we, as you say are "not the measure of all things" as measurement requires a mediation as form of proportionality. In these respects people, who strictly view the world as opposing duals only, oppose reason and cease to practice any form of rational function. In a separate respect by acknowledging the extremes, by letting them exist as they are in accordance with their nature, and observing a medial point as a third dimension we not only allow the phenomena to exist for what it is but are able to mediate them and cause a sense of balance through "centering".

In these respects the observation of duals allows the synthesis of a universal point of measurement.

In a separate respect we are also observe the "causal" nature of the phenomena as the "center" is the first point. We can observe this in the respect that all beginning and end points are medial points in themselves for further beginning and end points. In these respects by observing the center triadic element, by first observing the dualistic natures, we can observe it's "first" origins.

Troll
Posts: 120
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2018 1:53 am

Re: The Endless Duel of Dualism

Post by Troll »

Would it not be better to control what one likes and dislike altogether? If power is subject to what one likes, is it power?
I suppose you are right. Though, I believe the issue is, does one give expression to what power is, or to what it might be? I.e., does one give any ground to impossibility. Surely Locke attempted merely to say what power is, rather than one’s highest representation of power in thought.


I don’t know that one must loose oneself. In my own view power is the unconstrained joy in cruelty, i.e., it is precisely the lack of power of the weak, in inverse ratio, that is the power of the most profoundly powerful. Ergo, in disappearing, as though in a limit state, the power would dissipate utterly and cease to exist. In a certain sense, this view of mine, corresponds to the natural sciences, which hold that acts of cruelty release stress.


Now, I don’t know what you mean by your “centering”. Is the “lukewarm” the forbidden middle of hot and cold? Thereby disobeying the rule of thought that prescribes either one or the other, but not neither. In a certain sense, it is said, the Law of Excluded Middle binds all things together. Fat to Skinny for instance. Is this center the form of the whole as the golden median which is the essence and source of the pairing?
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: The Endless Duel of Dualism

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Troll wrote: Thu Feb 01, 2018 4:03 am
Would it not be better to control what one likes and dislike altogether? If power is subject to what one likes, is it power?
I suppose you are right. Though, I believe the issue is, does one give expression to what power is, or to what it might be? I.e., does one give any ground to impossibility. Surely Locke attempted merely to say what power is, rather than one’s highest representation of power in thought.


I don’t know that one must loose oneself. In my own view power is the unconstrained joy in cruelty, i.e., it is precisely the lack of power of the weak, in inverse ratio, that is the power of the most profoundly powerful. Ergo, in disappearing, as though in a limit state, the power would dissipate utterly and cease to exist. In a certain sense, this view of mine, corresponds to the natural sciences, which hold that acts of cruelty release stress.


Now, I don’t know what you mean by your “centering”. Is the “lukewarm” the forbidden middle of hot and cold? Thereby disobeying the rule of thought that prescribes either one or the other, but not neither. In a certain sense, it is said, the Law of Excluded Middle binds all things together. Fat to Skinny for instance. Is this center the form of the whole as the golden median which is the essence and source of the pairing?
Why can't you yanks get it through your thick heads that there is a word 'lose' and a different word, with a completely different meaning, 'loose'!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Troll
Posts: 120
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2018 1:53 am

Re: The Endless Duel of Dualism

Post by Troll »

He meant the word he wrote. Notice, unbinding or loosening the personality, rather points to losing it.

Ever since the nineteenth century human beings have grown stupid. It was at that time the textbook came in. And what followed was the academic, which is to say, persons who can do little more than rehearse precis from textbooks.
Troll
Posts: 120
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2018 1:53 am

Re: The Endless Duel of Dualism

Post by Troll »

Troll wrote: Thu Feb 01, 2018 11:56 pm He meant the word he wrote. Notice, unbinding or loosening the personality, rather points to losing it.

Ever since the nineteenth century human beings have grown stupid. It was at that time the textbook came in. And what followed was the academic, which is to say, persons who can do little more than rehearse precis from textbooks. To be sure, a thousand and one professor, still able to think, exist, but they are merely subjective views differing from the norm.
User avatar
vegetariantaxidermy
Posts: 13983
Joined: Thu Aug 09, 2012 6:45 am
Location: Narniabiznus

Re: The Endless Duel of Dualism

Post by vegetariantaxidermy »

Troll wrote: Thu Feb 01, 2018 11:56 pm He meant the word he wrote.
I doubt it. The rest is pseud gobbledygook with some rather sinister references to cruelty.
User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: The Endless Duel of Dualism

Post by Greta »

It's an odd thing that Americans are always coming on to forums to complain about "liberals". Yet it wasn't "liberals" who gifted the insane and hugely counter-productive US Iraq, which caused long term damage to the US, which has harmed the lives of many Americans and others.

I think there are many more concerns about so-called "conservatives" (actually reactionary radicals and agents of chaos) such as the cosying up to far right groups against coloured people, women and queers, the ignoring of scientific evidence, and the accelerated destruction of natural environments and widening of the wealth gap.

Meanwhile, "dualism" in the context of the OP simply refers to growth - the dance of order and chaos - and the ever evolving actors involved.
Post Reply