Hello Ham, > The reason I included your definition, along with those of Horse, Craig, and > Ian, in my 3/2 comment on this topic was to demonstrate the futility of > collective efforts to "reduce" something as fundamental as Duality when each > contributor has a different conception of what it means. I'll have to go back to that. Thanks for mentioning it. > Thus, when you say... > > [I]f a person approaches reality as if it were of separate parts > > or finite (thank you Ham for making this distinction) then they > > are behaving dualistically. > > ...you are talking about multiplicity (or differentiated "phenomena"), while > others are defining a primary split or division of Quality. By failing to > pin down your premise at the start, you're not going to arrive at an > acceptable conclusion. That's why I maintain that precise definitions are > prerequisite for clarity in philosophical discussions. Pirsig's division of > everything into levels and patterns is an artifical differentiation that > only compounds the problem. You're telling me what you heard me say. What I meant was what I said. The reality I am speaking of is that which is everything that existed, exists and will exist, the undifferentiated source, the great I AM. Non-dual thought and action is realizing this and being one with Reality. > As I pointed out, a dualism or duality denotes polarity involving only two > modes or contingencies. <snip> > No one can deny that reality as we know it is a dualism. Oh but they can and they do. But I think I understand what you mean. You're saying "reality as we know it" is differentiated existence? For me, there is more to reality that what I can know intellectually. Feelings are a good place to start. <snip> > Empirical experience reveals that every phenomenon has a cause -- even > phenomenalism itself. Everything relates to an antecedent; therefore the > duality we call existence must have a source. The simplest source -- one > that avoids an infinite regression of prior causes -- is itself uncaused and > non-dual. Some say that can only be Nothingness. But since nothing can > come from nothingness, I submit that the primary source is a Oneness with > the potentiality to actualize "difference" by denying (negating) nothingness. You've clearly given this a lot of thought. I can't say I understand what you understand. But I'll read on. > This creates a dichotomy in which awareness is provisionally separated > from what it perceives as an otherness. And the bond between Awareness > and Otherness is Value. So that what we subjectively experience as Being > is what our intellect objectivizes from Value. Interesting. I can see this means a lot to you. And so I'll respect it because I respect you. How would someone like me find meaning in this? > (The dynamics of this ontology are explained in my on-line thesis at > www.essentialism.net/mechanic.htm#reality.) I'll read it and get back to you. (end of part 1) Thanks Ham.
Kevin --------------------------------- Need Mail bonding? Go to the Yahoo! Mail Q&A for great tips from Yahoo! Answers users. moq_discuss mailing list Listinfo, Unsubscribing etc. http://lists.moqtalk.org/listinfo.cgi/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org Archives: http://lists.moqtalk.org/pipermail/moq_discuss-moqtalk.org/ http://moq.org.uk/pipermail/moq_discuss_archive/
