rufio, Many of us that have observed your posts on A2K have seen frequent contradictions in your opinions. Hasn't anybody in your family or friends pointed this out to you? How about your teachers? Just wondering. c.i.
What WAS your point, perception? That you know more about Nietszche than I do? I could have told you that. But since you like to think this is a great accomplishment, here's your badge of honor. Congratualtions for paying more attention to someone else's thinking than your own. Now, can we get back to the discussion? I prefer to think with my own mind.
CI, maybe if you mentioned some of these "contradictions", we could work through your inability to understand what I'm trying to say.
I reckon if your family or friends haven't identified them, my doing so would be a waste of time.
My family and friends have too short attention spans for this. I don't spend time discussing this is real life, because there are other things to do in real life than this.
while i'm exhausted from trying to catch up here, i have come to a new approach to dualism which i shall try to define for comment:
First i must state that i am completely with Terry, with respect to "reality";
my definition of 'reality' is the one that i perceive on a daily, hourly, second-ly, basis; based upon my sensual relationship to the environment around me as interpreted by my brain's bios (which i cannot escape/nor do i want to)!
The 'duality' about which i speak is based upon 'hypocracy'; either intentional, or unintentional.
As a being observing, and reacting to environmental stimulus, one must be constantly aware of two streams of mental awareness;
the first hypocritical stream:
the immediate social stream of expected behaviour, by which we live our lives within the confines of merging with the expectations of our co-passengers on this planet; thereby avoiding the prime evil of 'standing out as different' within a society of demanded conformity.
The second, real, and to me, more important stream, is the 'disconnected awareness' stream, by which we pass all this sensory, and intellectual input through a prism of 'actuality'; the filter of wisdom gained over a lifetime of learning and experience, which allows us to see through the web of tradition, superstition, instinctive reactions, archaic programming, and all the impediments to understanding and logic; the crust of cultural rust eating into the purity of social interaction of the fair honest, and sensitive nature, which we need to survive with dignity, in a life with which, if we seize the chance, we can have the courage to show the way (albeit at great cost).
Some interesting concepts (and some great phrases !) here which on consideration suggest to me a "trinity" rather than a "duality". i.e. you seem to suggest 3 levels of reality 1. physical 2. social 3. transcendent. This is of course simplistic on my part and stated for my own purposes. However, if I put it to you that you scrutinize the word "reality" and consider a definition along the lines of "a mode of interaction" then it is possible to see the "self" as an ephemeral structure interacting at several "descriptive levels". (perhaps like an ocean wave 1. at the molecular level 2. interaction with other waves 3. as a manifestation of energy transformation within a macrocosm)
Each level is "used" for "predictive purposes" and the non-dualists start from level 3 and then reject it
in a self-denial/time-denial/prediction-denial move.
The central issue that remains is that "analysis" (yours, mine or anybody's) can yield a multitude of models but "experience of meditational practice" which gives a "conviction of reality" resists description in terms of models.
Isn't that exactly what I said way back at the beggining of this thread, fresco? I agree with you though, and you said it better than I did.