The Dualistic Mind

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 3098
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: The Dualistic Mind

Post by Lacewing » Sat Sep 22, 2018 9:17 pm

Nick_A wrote:
Sat Sep 22, 2018 8:19 pm
But you still have not said where anything I have written opposes what either Plato, Einstein, Simone Weil, or Jacob Needleman have written. What is this loaded interpretation you refer too?
It's simply the nature of interpretation, Nick: it is YOURS. Do you believe any person who claims to represent God? Do you believe any politician who claims to represent the American people? Do you believe that ANYONE represents anything without imposing their own stuff onto it? You do not represent these people that you quote. You don't know them -- you are using their words to support your ideas which are embellishments created and combined in a way to suit yourself. You cannot represent anything or anyone else in a pure form. It's your own cloak you wear, regardless of trying to identify yourself with another. I am CERTAIN that none of the people you routinely quote would have spoken and made claims and accusations in the way that you do -- THAT'S your own creation. How could it be any other way?

Nick_A
Posts: 3888
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: The Dualistic Mind

Post by Nick_A » Sat Sep 22, 2018 11:19 pm

Lacewing you seem to be referring to style rather than substance. It can’t be helped. As has been proven, the premise of the fallen human condition is repulsive to secularism so attracts the nastiest responses. Maybe this will help clarify the situation.

Simone Weil wrote 75 years ago: “Nothing is so beautiful and wonderful, nothing is so continually fresh and surprising, so full of sweet and perpetual ecstasy, as the good. No desert is so dreary, monotonous, and boring as evil. This is the truth about authentic good and evil. With fictional good and evil it is the other way round. Fictional good is boring and flat, whole fictional evil is varied and intriguing, attractive, profound, and full of charm.”

When I read this I had to admit to myself that I don’t know what good and evil is. I am attracted to fictional evil and oppose fictional good that is accepted in society as reality. Who will admit that they don’t know the difference between objective good and evil but are instead governed by subjective explanations continually being argued. This seems like dualistic cave life to me. There is no way to cutsey pooh the idea and make it acceptable without ruining its meaning. Is there a way a person can begin to experience the difference between objective good and evil?

Simone Weil wrote in “ On Science, Necessity and the Love of God “
What makes the abyss between twentieth-century science and that of previous centuries is the different role of algebra. In physics algebra was at first simply a process for summarizing the relations, established by reasoning based on experiment, between the ideas of physics; an extremely convenient process for the numerical calculations necessary for their verification and application. But its role has continually increased in importance until finally, whereas algebra was once the auxiliary language and words the essential one, it is now exactly the other way round. There are even some physicists who tend to make algebra the sole language, or almost, so that in the end, an unattainable end of course, there would be nothing except figures derived form experimental measurements, and letters, combined in formulae. Now, ordinary language and algebraic language are not subject to the same logical requirement; relations between ideas are not fully represented by relations between letters; and, in particular, incompatible assertions may have equational equivalents which are by no means incompatible. When some relations between ideas have been translated into algebra and the formulae have been manipulated solely according to the numerical data of the experiment and the laws proper to algebra, results may be obtained which, when retranslated into spoken language, are a violent contradiction of common sense.
Weil argues that this creates an incomplete and, in its incompleteness, illusory representation of reality — even when it bisects the planes of mathematical data and common sense, such science leaves out the unquantifiable layer of meaning:
If the algebra of physicists gives the impression of profundity it is because it is entirely flat; the third dimension of thought is missing.
That third dimension is that of meaning — one concerned with notions like “the human soul, freedom, consciousness, the reality of the external world.” (Three decades later, Hannah Arendt — another of the twentieth century’s most piercing and significant minds — would memorably contemplate the crucial difference between truth and meaning, the former being the material of science and the latter of philosophy.)

The dualistic mind is concerned with dualistic relationships. This is of course valuable. However the question of objective good and evil for Man is the domain of the third dimension of thought which the modern emphasis on dualistic reason and indoctrination needs to suppress to protect its dualistic subjective dominance. This thread is about what is lost through the denial of the third dimension of thought. Of course it is rejected but I learn by rejection. It gives me the opportunity to ponder how dualistic rejection can be put into a triune perspective.


Plato valued the contradiction and how it led to anamnesis or remembrance through the vertical third dimension of thought. Einstein viewed it as a necessary quality for intuition. Of course Jacob Needleman and Simone referred to this psychological quality that can put dualism into a triune perspective providing meaning to truth.

Believe me I know the idea is hated. But at the same time it is vital that its value becomes a more acceptable part of society. So I keep it alive regardless of the growls. I learn by rejection.

User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 3098
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: The Dualistic Mind

Post by Lacewing » Sun Sep 23, 2018 12:06 am

Nick_A wrote:
Sat Sep 22, 2018 11:19 pm
Lacewing you seem to be referring to style rather than substance.
Your (or anyone's) interpretation distorts original intent/substance. It can't be helped. Everything you touch and pass on is altered. Can you not see how that is true?

Nick_A
Posts: 3888
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: The Dualistic Mind

Post by Nick_A » Sun Sep 23, 2018 12:39 am

Lacewing wrote:
Sun Sep 23, 2018 12:06 am
Nick_A wrote:
Sat Sep 22, 2018 11:19 pm
Lacewing you seem to be referring to style rather than substance.
Your (or anyone's) interpretation distorts original intent/substance. It can't be helped. Everything you touch and pass on is altered. Can you not see how that is true?
Of course that is true. There are universal laws which explains why everything turns in circles. But to build vertical philosophical understanding a person needs a deductive foundation to build upon. For me it is the reality of absolutes. There is both the eternal unchanging and a universe in constant change. Reconciling this is the beginning of philosophy for me.

I can verify a universe in constant change. Without absolutes there can be nothing but subjective meaning. Something as extraordinary as our universe lacking objective purpose within which Man's meaning can be experienced seems ridiculous to me.

That is my foundation and it does seem to be the foundation for those I've mentioned. Of course there can be small differences but the foundation is the same. It is considered repulsive because it requires a God concept and humanity living as if in Plato's cave. It is really the interpretations of God and Man that have caused world chaos. A person with a sincere interest in philosophy must be concerned why this is so.

User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 3098
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: The Dualistic Mind

Post by Lacewing » Sun Sep 23, 2018 2:34 am

Nick_A wrote:
Sun Sep 23, 2018 12:39 am
a person needs a deductive foundation to build upon. For me it is the reality of absolutes.
How could you (or anyone) possibly know what such absolutes might be? Seriously.
Nick_A wrote:
Sun Sep 23, 2018 12:39 am
Something as extraordinary as our universe lacking objective purpose within which Man's meaning can be experienced seems ridiculous to me.
This assumes that man is uniquely important, yes? And that the Universe basically revolves around man, yes? Doesn't it seem highly likely that such ideas are contrived by man?

Why would a Universe of so many frequencies and languages and forms and energies be focused primarily on the limited human range of language and perception -- which is a tiny fraction of all that is? The human is concerned with itself and has needs and fears that the Universe does not have. So why would the Universe "think" in human terms? Why would the Universe limit its potential to the human scope?

It doesn't make sense to me that humans -- who have obviously proven to be limited throughout their history -- could become so convinced by imposing their own limited ideas onto the Universe, and by clearly serving themselves with a God created in their image. Instead of recognizing and honoring man's place amidst ALL in the Universe, man creates a God focused on himself, and claims to know that God's thoughts. Man interpreting God!

There is something about the way you and some others present your views that make it sound like you each (uniquely) are interpreting supposed absolute truths. And that seems obviously ridiculous.
Nick_A wrote:
Sun Sep 23, 2018 12:39 am
That is my foundation and it does seem to be the foundation for those I've mentioned. Of course there can be small differences but the foundation is the same. It is considered repulsive because it requires a God concept and humanity living as if in Plato's cave. It is really the interpretations of God and Man that have caused world chaos. A person with a sincere interest in philosophy must be concerned why this is so.
A person with a sincere interest in philosophy must be willing to question their own foundation, as well as those who have come before, don't you think? How honest is it to only question that which preserves your foundation? I'm interested in hearing your responses to all of the questions I asked above -- and please, only truly direct and honest responses, NOT more rambling and intoxicated justification for your own beloved foundation which is mostly non-compelling to me, and should not be required for honestly answering these questions. In the spirit of sincere interest in truthfully exploring philosophy, can you do that?

Nick_A
Posts: 3888
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: The Dualistic Mind

Post by Nick_A » Sun Sep 23, 2018 5:03 am

Lacewing
How could you (or anyone) possibly know what such absolutes might be? Seriously
.

Good question. Absolutes are the same for me as Plato’s forms which exist in the GOOD as pure ideas beyond our comprehension. Beauty and justice are examples of forms or absolutes. We can theoretically know them but cannot experience them as forms but only as subjective devolutions.
This assumes that man is uniquely important, yes? And that the Universe basically revolves around man, yes? Doesn't it seem highly likely that such ideas are contrived by man?

Why would a Universe of so many frequencies and languages and forms and energies be focused primarily on the limited human range of language and perception -- which is a tiny fraction of all that is? The human is concerned with itself and has needs and fears that the Universe does not have. So why would the Universe "think" in human terms? Why would the Universe limit its potential to the human scope?

It doesn't make sense to me that humans -- who have obviously proven to be limited throughout their history -- could become so convinced by imposing their own limited ideas onto the Universe, and by clearly serving themselves with a God created in their image. Instead of recognizing and honoring man's place amidst ALL in the Universe, man creates a God focused on himself, and claims to know that God's thoughts. Man interpreting God!
Perhaps this is how some think but not me. Man on earth is a microcosm. This means the structure of man is similar to the universe just far less in scale. Man on earth is like a body cell for the body of God. A body cell is important in that we would not exist without them. Yet a single body cell is meaningless for the whole of our body.

The level of reality of which the earth is a part is midway within the vertical structure of the conscious universe explained in the Conscious Universe link. It is the point of transition between mechanical life and conscious life. Man on earth is unique in that Man can make this transition. That is the purpose of the Ways- to further Man’s conscious evolution.

It is a mistake IMO to believe the universe is here to serve Man. Rather Man on earth serves a universal necessity with the potential to serve a conscious purpose.
A person with a sincere interest in philosophy must be willing to question their own foundation, as well as those who have come before, don't you think? How honest is it to only question that which preserves your foundation? I'm interested in hearing your responses to all of the questions I asked above -- and please, only truly direct and honest responses, NOT more rambling and intoxicated justification for your own beloved foundation which is mostly non-compelling to me, and should not be required for honestly answering these questions. In the spirit of sincere interest in truthfully exploring philosophy, can you do that?
Of course. We must question. But we have to begin with a hypothesis and then seek to verify it.

I begin with the top down structure of the universe beginning with the ONE which takes shape due to the interaction of the three universal laws manifesting in densities of matter.

The alternative is to deny a conscious source and begin with the hypothesis that creation is an ascending accident. This seems clearly impossible so I begin with the premise of the ONE and the involutionary descending process resulting in the levels of reality which sustain creation. I seek to verify it by means of efforts to “know thyself” or this microcosm with the potential to become “I AM”

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 6033
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: The Dualistic Mind

Post by Dontaskme » Sun Sep 23, 2018 12:35 pm

What you call "I" is an artificial creation created by the association of neurons that disappear every night when you go to sleep. What you call your body is actually the entire Universe with the most distant galaxy as necessary as your own heart. Therefore the problem of where is God etc is like asking where is the Universe. These difficulties appear because of wrong assumptions adopted at an early age with the acceptance of religions like Christianity, Judaism or Islam in which God is to be found somewhere other than in the Universe in a kind of hypnotic trance.

.

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 6033
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: The Dualistic Mind

Post by Dontaskme » Mon Sep 24, 2018 1:58 pm

''It would seem obvious that in order to evolve consciously we need to make conscious efforts. The word “conscious” refers to an individual sense of recognition of something within or without oneself. It comes from Latin "conscious": “knowing, aware”, to be awake or awakened to an inner realization of a fact and truth.

Hence a shift or evolution of consciousness implies working towards a higher state of awareness, which means to become more aware or it all. It implies to see the world and oneself more objectively, without blinders on. This also relates to conscience. The word “conscience”, etymologically speaking, means “to know together.” It is derived from the Latin prefix "con": “together” and the Latin verb "sciere": “to know; to understand”. Therefore a development of evolution of consciousness means knowing “more together”, seeing things differently than previously known. It is about gaining knowledge of oneself and of the world in order to raise our awareness and apply knowledge through understanding. Knowledge in that sense is not merely gathering or memorizing information, but embodying it and acting on it. This doesn’t happen by itself but requires sincere and conscious work to separate truth from lies, within and without. In short, inner and outer work is required to evolve consciously in order to awaken from the somnambulistic state and hypnotic trance humanity is under."


~ Bernhard Guenther

User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 3098
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: The Dualistic Mind

Post by Lacewing » Mon Sep 24, 2018 4:08 pm

Nick_A wrote:
Sun Sep 23, 2018 5:03 am
Absolutes are the same for me as Plato’s forms which exist in the GOOD as pure ideas beyond our comprehension. Beauty and justice are examples of forms or absolutes.
So they are imagined absolutes, yes?

Beauty and justice are relative, aren't they?
Nick_A wrote:
Sun Sep 23, 2018 5:03 am
Man on earth serves a universal necessity with the potential to serve a conscious purpose.
And each man thinks he knows what it means to be conscious, yes? With so many variations of what "being conscious" is -- all constructed by man, using the same mind of limited, fearful, hateful, and ego-bound notions that he always uses when he creates rules and reality -- he imagines higher-level thinking, and proclaims what it is, just like he proclaims what is a god.
Nick_A wrote:
Sun Sep 23, 2018 5:03 am
Of course. We must question. But we have to begin with a hypothesis and then seek to verify it.
It seems that seeking to verify a hypothesis sets up man to validate his own thinking, which surely awakens the ego in manufacturing all kinds of false proofs. Isn't it easy for a hypothesis to become a false idol? Eventually being worshipped and fed and maintained at all costs... even sanity.
Nick_A wrote:
Sun Sep 23, 2018 5:03 am
I begin with the top down structure of the universe beginning with the ONE which takes shape due to the interaction of the three universal laws manifesting in densities of matter.
These are all ideas. Nothing is actually known, right? It just makes the most sense to you... and it may feel right. This idea of "universal laws"... how could a human known such a thing? It is a human explanation for that which a human thinks makes sense and/or must be. But such ideas evolve into so much more... into what man thinks "is" and "should be"... and then man acts on that... blindly, cruelly, god-like... to maintain and protect what man wants to think he "knows". Do you see any truth in what I've suggested?
Nick_A wrote:
Sun Sep 23, 2018 5:03 am
The alternative is to deny a conscious source and begin with the hypothesis that creation is an ascending accident.
I'm guessing that man's idea of consciousness is too heavy with limited and particular assumptions. I'm guessing there can be consciousness without a "source", and there can be "momentum" rather than "purpose". I think that man assigns his own meanings onto the Universe... and that cannot help but be extraordinarily limited. What fascinates me is the ego that NEEDS to do such a thing... as if screaming "this must be known" and "I must be the one to know it"! Does that point to a need to prove purpose of existence? Why must there be a purpose? If there's no purpose, do we feel unbearably invalidated or insignificant?
Nick_A wrote:
Sun Sep 23, 2018 5:03 am
I begin with the premise of the ONE and the involutionary descending process resulting in the levels of reality which sustain creation. I seek to verify it by means of efforts to “know thyself” or this microcosm with the potential to become “I AM”
These are all ideas, yes? And again, it seems that the goal and human motivation will often be to verify whatever ideas we're attracted to. So I want to suggest that we notice this "drive", and notice all that gets added on: entire philosophies about what is and must be, and who is and is not, etc. As well as all that is ignored. If we are willing to recognize how convoluted our ideas/creations can become, perhaps we can see/learn something about ourselves for striving after such creations, and we can trim them down to an essence of more freedom and clarity... without all the human-made rules and limitations and desires.

Nick_A
Posts: 3888
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: The Dualistic Mind

Post by Nick_A » Mon Sep 24, 2018 8:37 pm

Dontaskme wrote:
Sun Sep 23, 2018 12:35 pm
What you call "I" is an artificial creation created by the association of neurons that disappear every night when you go to sleep. What you call your body is actually the entire Universe with the most distant galaxy as necessary as your own heart. Therefore the problem of where is God etc is like asking where is the Universe. These difficulties appear because of wrong assumptions adopted at an early age with the acceptance of religions like Christianity, Judaism or Islam in which God is to be found somewhere other than in the Universe in a kind of hypnotic trance.

.
Don't forget that this thread is about the limitations of the dualistic mind. So the questions becomes the difference in what you rightly call IMO I as an artificial creation and the reality of the human potential to become "I AM."

Man is a plurality so the concept of I must be followed by a clarifier like I am hungry or I am a woman or man for example. It is a dualistic concept - I am this as opposed to that.. "I Am" is a triune concept requiring at least two levels of reality. So the seeker of truth is compelled to transcend the attraction to divisive dualism and become open to the quality of reconciliation from a higher conscious level of reality. The question becomes how to do it.

Nick_A
Posts: 3888
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: The Dualistic Mind

Post by Nick_A » Mon Sep 24, 2018 9:28 pm

Lacewing
So they are imagined absolutes, yes?
Yes, many imagine absolutes
Beauty and justice are relative, aren't they?
They are for our level of realty. But for the Absolute they are objective qualities beyond dualistic reason.
And each man thinks he knows what it means to be conscious, yes? With so many variations of what "being conscious" is -- all constructed by man, using the same mind of limited, fearful, hateful, and ego-bound notions that he always uses when he creates rules and reality -- he imagines higher-level thinking, and proclaims what it is, just like he proclaims what is a god.
Yes, this is how experts and charlatans are created. Dualistic reason and fantasy limits them to the same quality of mind producing the same quality of idolatry. So a new quality of mind which transcends dualistic reason is necessary.
It seems that seeking to verify a hypothesis sets up man to validate his own thinking, which surely awakens the ego in manufacturing all kinds of false proofs. Isn't it easy for a hypothesis to become a false idol? Eventually being worshipped and fed and maintained at all costs... even sanity.
Yes, this often happens in politics, modern science, and secular religion. The question is if it has to happen? If it doesn’t, what is the first step in transcending it?
These are all ideas. Nothing is actually known, right? It just makes the most sense to you... and it may feel right. This idea of "universal laws"... how could a human known such a thing? It is a human explanation for that which a human thinks makes sense and/or must be. But such ideas evolve into so much more... into what man thinks "is" and "should be"... and then man acts on that... blindly, cruelly, god-like... to maintain and protect what man wants to think he "knows". Do you see any truth in what I've suggested?
Yes. IMO it is the natural tendency for dualistic cave life. The higher is always pulled down into the lower. As usual the question becomes how a person can become more than a creature of dualistic reaction and become capable of conscious action. What is the first step?
I'm guessing that man's idea of consciousness is too heavy with limited and particular assumptions. I'm guessing there can be consciousness without a "source", and there can be "momentum" rather than "purpose". I think that man assigns his own meanings onto the Universe... and that cannot help but be extraordinarily limited. What fascinates me is the ego that NEEDS to do such a thing... as if screaming "this must be known" and "I must be the one to know it"! Does that point to a need to prove purpose of existence? Why must there be a purpose? If there's no purpose, do we feel unbearably invalidated or insignificant?
How can consciousness defined by a quality of inclusion become possible without a source attracting lesser qualities of consciousness to join with the Source? How can blind momentum lead to anything? I don’s see the logic in this.

Of course the cave ego prefers to explain what it doesn’t understand. It is normal for cave life. However Plato did define Man as a creature in need of meaning.

Simone Weil wrote in part: “ but what did grieve me was the idea of being excluded from that transcendent kingdom to which only the truly great have access and wherein truth abides. I preferred to die rather than live without that truth.”

You may call it an acquired need of her personality but I see it as a calling from the essence of her being. Can you agree that both are possible?
These are all ideas, yes? And again, it seems that the goal and human motivation will often be to verify whatever ideas we're attracted to. So I want to suggest that we notice this "drive", and notice all that gets added on: entire philosophies about what is and must be, and who is and is not, etc. As well as all that is ignored. If we are willing to recognize how convoluted our ideas/creations can become, perhaps we can see/learn something about ourselves for striving after such creations, and we can trim them down to an essence of more freedom and clarity... without all the human-made rules and limitations and desires
.

Yes, but it isn’t wanted. We prefer to Imagine ourselves for the sake of self justification rather than knowing ourselves and admitting our ignorance. How many would be open to what Gurdjieff said:
“There do exist enquiring minds, which long for the truth of the heart, seek it, strive to solve the problems set by life, try to penetrate to the essence of things and phenomena and to penetrate into themselves. If a man reasons and thinks soundly, no matter which path he follows in solving these problems, he must inevitably arrive back at himself, and begin with the solution of the problem of what he is himself and what his place is in the world around him.”
G. I. Gurdjieff

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 6033
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: The Dualistic Mind

Post by Dontaskme » Tue Sep 25, 2018 7:10 am

Nick_A wrote:
Mon Sep 24, 2018 8:37 pm
Don't forget that this thread is about the limitations of the dualistic mind.
Don't worry, I won't forget because I'll always have you here to remind me.

.

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 6033
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: The Dualistic Mind

Post by Dontaskme » Tue Sep 25, 2018 7:12 am

Nick_A wrote:
Mon Sep 24, 2018 8:37 pm
The question becomes how to do it.
The question becomes not how to do it, but are they willing to do it. And the answer is probably, NO...

User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 3098
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: The Dualistic Mind

Post by Lacewing » Tue Sep 25, 2018 8:06 pm

Nick_A wrote:
Mon Sep 24, 2018 9:28 pm
...
Nick, do you think there is any delusion for those who claim to speak of absolutes and who claim to use non-dualistic reason?
Nick_A wrote:
Mon Sep 24, 2018 9:28 pm
Lacewing wrote:Beauty and justice are relative, aren't they?
They are for our level of realty. But for the Absolute they are objective qualities beyond dualistic reason.
Aren't the concepts of beauty and justice, HUMAN concepts?

Setting imagination aside, what reasoning do you have for assigning human concepts beyond the human realm?
Nick_A wrote:
Mon Sep 24, 2018 9:28 pm
a new quality of mind which transcends dualistic reason is necessary
And you claim to know what this is, and why it is necessary, and how to do it, and who has it and who doesn't, yes? But you claim that none of this is your creation.
Nick_A wrote:
Mon Sep 24, 2018 9:28 pm
Lacewing wrote:It seems that seeking to verify a hypothesis sets up man to validate his own thinking, which surely awakens the ego in manufacturing all kinds of false proofs. Isn't it easy for a hypothesis to become a false idol? Eventually being worshipped and fed and maintained at all costs... even sanity.
Yes, this often happens in politics, modern science, and secular religion. The question is if it has to happen? If it doesn’t, what is the first step in transcending it?
I am sticking with the context of our discussion, and the reasons why I've asked certain questions is because of what you, yourself, have said about your own approach and view. You can't just keep blowing off my responses as only issues for "dualistic thinkers". If you take such human approaches, please clarify how you think you are transcending the pitfalls I pointed out (with you in mind BTW). I think you are trying to kid me along with yourself... and I'm not falling for it. You express a great deal of dualistic thinking about dualistic thinking(!)... and even more than most people I see (sorry Nick!). Everything you say shows your quality (or lack) of transcending anything.

It is dishonest and/or delusional to pretend not to be a dualistic-thinking human, just because you WANT to rise above it. You are imagining and imposing human ideas onto some concept of being beyond or above being human. It is arrogant and disrespectful to talk to others as if you see an imaginary ultimate state that they do not see. You're not helping anybody by doing that; you're using it to elevate yourself and condemn those who continue to be human (which you are yourself!!), right?
Nick_A wrote:
Mon Sep 24, 2018 9:28 pm
You may call it an acquired need of her [Simone's] personality but I see it as a calling from the essence of her being. Can you agree that both are possible?
Is there really any difference? We all call out from "the essence of our being" in many ways. Why do you seek to glorify some particular notion of it?

I would really like to know: Why do you seek to distinguish between what is and is not spirit? Why do you think there's some sort of inappropriate separation within oneness/wholeness?

Nick_A
Posts: 3888
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2012 1:23 am

Re: The Dualistic Mind

Post by Nick_A » Thu Sep 27, 2018 2:15 am

Lacewing
Nick, do you think there is any delusion for those who claim to speak of absolutes and who claim to use non-dualistic reason?
Of course. Escapist imagination is just a misuse or this attribute
Aren't the concepts of beauty and justice, HUMAN concepts?

Setting imagination aside, what reasoning do you have for assigning human concepts beyond the human realm?
Are you familiar with Plato's divided line analogy?. Basically beauty for example exists as an idea, a form above the divided line while we interpret consequences of the form as beauty from below the line.

https://aquileana.wordpress.com/2015/11 ... %E2%AD%90/
According to Plato, Beauty was an idea or Form of which beautiful things were consequence.

Beauty by comparison begins in the domain of intelligible objects, since there is a Form of beauty. The most important question is: what do all of these beautiful things have in common?. To know that is to know Beauty.

The Theory of Forms maintains that two distinct levels of reality exist: the visible world of sights and sounds that we inhabit and the intelligible world of Forms that stands above the visible world and gives it being. For example, Plato maintains that in addition to being able to identify a beautiful person or a beautiful painting, we also have a general conception of Beauty itself, and we are able to identify the beauty in a person or a painting only because we have this conception of Beauty in the abstract. In other words, the beautiful things we can see are beautiful only because they participate in the more general Form of Beauty. This Form of Beauty is itself invisible, eternal, and unchanging, unlike the things in the visible world that can grow old and lose their beauty.

Plato’s account in the Symposium connects beauty to a response of love and desire, but locate beauty itself in the realm of the Forms, and the beauty of particular objects in their participation in the Form.

Beauty’s distinctive pedagogical effects show why Plato talks about its goodness and good consequences, sometimes even its identity with “the good” (Laws 841c; Philebus 66a–b; Republic, 401c; Symposium 201c, 205e).
Common sense reveals to me that there is no natural cause for the experience of beauty. It isn't a result of accidental evolution so must be an inner awareness of a reality beyond the limits of our senses. Beauty then exists as a perfect form in the intelligible world and also as a subjective human interpretation in the visible realm.
And you claim to know what this is, and why it is necessary, and how to do it, and who has it and who doesn't, yes? But you claim that none of this is your creation.
The Eastern conception of our third eye is an ancient conception not created by me. Is there any truth in it? Imagine an equilateral triangle. The base represents dualistic reason. Affirmation met by denial is argued along the base of the triangle. The extremes of yes and no are expressed by the limits of the base.

However we have the human potential to consciously experience the apex of the triangle and reconcile the dualistic division from a higher conscious perspective

Einstein describes how it is done:
1948
"One never goes wrong following his feeling. I don’t mean emotions, I mean feeling, for feeling and intuition are one.” Albert Einstein, in Einstein and the Poet – In Search of the Cosmic Man by William Hermanns (Branden Press, 1983, p. 95. – conversation on September 14, 1948)
Metropolitan Anthony says something similar to Jacob Needleman in his book "Lost Christianity:"
Metropolitan Anthony," I began, "five years ago when I visited you I attended services which you yourself conducted and I remarked to you how struck I was by the absence of emotion in your voice. Today, in the same way where it was not you but the choir, I was struck by the same thing, the almost complete lack of emotion in the voices of the singers."

Yes he said, "this is quite true, it has taken years for that, but they are finally beginning to understand...."

"What do you mean?" I asked. I knew what he meant but I wanted to hear him speak about this - this most unexpected aspect of the Christianity I never knew, and perhaps very few modern people ever knew. I put the question further: "The average person hearing this service - and of course the average Westerner having to stand up for several hours it took - might not be able to distinguish it from the mechanical routine that has become so predominant in the performance of the Christian liturgy in the West. He might come wanting to be lifted, inspired,moved to joy or sadness - and this the churches in the West are trying to produce because many leaders of the Church are turning away from the mechanical, the routine.."

He gently waved aside what I was saying and I stopped in mid sentence. "There was a pause, then he said: "No. Emotion must be destroyed."

He stopped, reflected, and started again, speaking in his husky Russian accent: "We have to get rid of emotions....in order to reach.....feeling."

Again he paused, looking at me, weighing the effect his words were having. I said nothing. but inside I was alive with expectancy. I waited.

Very tentatively, I nodded my head.

He continued: "You ask about the liturgy in the West and in the East. it is precisely the same issue. the sermons, the Holy Days - you don't why one comes after the other. or why this one now and the other one later. Even if you read everything about it you still wouldn't know, believe me.

"And yet . . . there is a profound logic in them, in the sequence of the Holy Days. And this sequence leads people somewhere - without their knowing it intellectually. Actually, it is impossible for anyone to understand the sequence of rituals and Holy Days intellectually. it is not meant for that. It is meant for something else, something higher.

For this you have to be in a state of prayer, otherwise it passes you by-"

"What is prayer?" I asked.

He did not seem to mind my interrupting with this question. Quite the contrary. "In a state of prayer one is vulnerable." He emphasized the last word and then waited until he was sure I had not taken it in an ordinary way.

"In prayer one is vulnerable, not enthusiastic. and then these rituals have such force. they hit you like a locomotive. You must be not enthusiastic, nor rejecting - but only open. This is the whole idea of asceticism: to become open."
Intuition is a higher form of intellect than dualistic reason. It is higher emotional reason which requires the experience of "feelings" and freedom from acquired lower habitual and negative emotions. Intuition reveals reality above the divided line natural for the intelligible world. It is what makes Plato's anamnesis or remembrance possible.
I am sticking with the context of our discussion, and the reasons why I've asked certain questions is because of what you, yourself, have said about your own approach and view. You can't just keep blowing off my responses as only issues for "dualistic thinkers". If you take such human approaches, please clarify how you think you are transcending the pitfalls I pointed out (with you in mind BTW). I think you are trying to kid me along with yourself... and I'm not falling for it. You express a great deal of dualistic thinking about dualistic thinking(!)... and even more than most people I see (sorry Nick!). Everything you say shows your quality (or lack) of transcending anything.
Dualisitic reason is sufficient for daily life in Plato's cave. Some people through philosophy and religion become concerned if this is all there is. They feel that there is more and begin to become attracted to something greater than identifiction with life in Plato's cave. This invites the third dimension of thought to show the psychological path leading to the conscious experience of human meaning as opposed to acquired cave meanings.
It is dishonest and/or delusional to pretend not to be a dualistic-thinking human, just because you WANT to rise above it. You are imagining and imposing human ideas onto some concept of being beyond or above being human. It is arrogant and disrespectful to talk to others as if you see an imaginary ultimate state that they do not see. You're not helping anybody by doing that; you're using it to elevate yourself and condemn those who continue to be human (which you are yourself!!), right?
Of course I am dualistic in daily life. Sometimes I experience my daily life from a higher perspective made possible by being shown the door that those like Einstein and Simone Weil have experienced that leads to a human conscious perspective. This doesn't make me special. I have just become aware of a human potential that the world and its identification with cave life rejects. I know what Metropolitan Anthony meant but you would probably reject it.

N
ick_A wrote: ↑Mon Sep 24, 2018 8:28 pm
You may call it an acquired need of her [Simone's] personality but I see it as a calling from the essence of her being. Can you agree that both are possible?
Is there really any difference? We all call out from "the essence of our being" in many ways. Why do you seek to glorify some particular notion of it?

I would really like to know: Why do you seek to distinguish between what is and is not spirit? Why do you think there's some sort of inappropriate separation within oneness/wholeness?
Socrates — 'Give me beauty in the inward soul; may the outward and the inward man be at one.'
You don't seem to distinguish the inner man and the qualities we are born with and the outer man which is our learned personality. I agree with Socrates that they are not the same.

Spirit is spirit but consciousness is relative. Conscious evolution begins with the assertion that it is possible. Can animal Man can become a conscious being? Anyone can make simple experiments to prove to themselves that their quality of consciousness varies. If it does, what are its limits. Those who are concerned make efforts to have the conscious experience of themselves. They strive to "know thyself."

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests