Is it wrong to be self-centered?

truth
Rufio, YOUR understanding of non-dualism and the unity of everything is what is NARROWLY FOCUSED. Don't ask me why; I don't want to fall into one of your attempts to perpetuate debate on a meaningless level. Figure it out yourself, IF you're interested in understanding what we are talking about. We cannot MAKE you understand; only you can.

0 Replies

rufio wrote:

In order to realize that you can see things from other perspecitives, you have to first understand that everyone's perspective is different.

And that insight ought to be encouraged.

Perhaps, the only time we all suffer the same perspective is when we are one with death; that is, are all deadcentrists.

0 Replies

It is not my inability to understand things, JL, it's the fact that I have no idea what you mean when you talk about nondualism, but you refuse to explain. There's no way I can figure out what goes on in your head "on my own".

0 Replies

rufio wrote:

It is not my inability to understand things, JL, it's the fact that I have no idea what you mean when you talk about nondualism, but you refuse to explain. There's no way I can figure out what goes on in your head "on my own".

JL may not understand it himself.

from www.m-w.com
Main Entry: du·al·ism
Pronunciation: 'dü-&-"li-z&m also 'dyü-
Function: noun
1 : a theory that considers reality to consist of two irreducible elements or modes
2 : the quality or state of being dual or of having a dual nature
3 a : a doctrine that the universe is under the dominion of two opposing principles one of which is good and the other evil b : a view of human beings as constituted of two irreducible elements (as matter and spirit)
- du·al·ist /-list/ noun
- du·al·is·tic /"dü-&-'lis-tik, "dyü-/ adjective
- du·al·is·ti·cal·ly /-ti-k(&-)lE/ adverb

Maybe, non-dualism is:
1. there's no such thing as good and evil; or,
2. there's only good; or,
3. there's only evil.

Then again, maybe, non-dualism is:
1. there's no such thing as matter and spirit; or,
2. there's only spirit; or,
3. there's only matter.

But, then again, maybe non-dualism is:
1. there's no such thing as truth and falsity; or,
2. there's only truth; or,
3. there's only falsity.

But, then again, maybe non-dualism is:
1. there's no such thing as me and you; or,
2. there's only me; or,
3. there's only you.

Et cetera Exclamation

Aren't you glad you asked Question

0 Replies

truth
Rufio, my frustration with you is that I HAVE been trying to communicate to you, and others, what I mean by dualism--but to no avail. The failure may be partly mine, but you have not made any visable effort to transcend your paradigm for purposes of understanding that of non-dualism. Perhaps you should just depend, like Ican, on the authority of the dictionary. That would make my life much easier.

0 Replies

ican, this is a bit off-topic, but I was amused by an acronym Matt Ridley invented in his book "Nature via Nurture - Genes, Experience and What Makes us Human."

Genome Organizing Device = GOD

Thought you might appreciate it. Laughing

0 Replies

Cryptic one-liners are not my definition of communication. (You can check the dictionary for that too, if you want.) If you want to have a conversation, than by all means do, but I am sick of this alternately being a shouting match and a discussion with a wall. Or a Zen master, maybe. I don't really see a difference, to be honest.

0 Replies

truth
Fine, let's leave it at that. Please!

0 Replies

Terry wrote:

ican, this is a bit off-topic, but I was amused by an acronym Matt Ridley invented in his book "Nature via Nurture - Genes, Experience and What Makes us Human."
Genome Organizing Device = GOD
Thought you might appreciate it.

Yes Terry I do appreciate it! Laughing

Now I'm left with the question of whether GOD is an automatic or an intelligent feedback control, genome organizing device.

Let's see if putting this in the context of dualism versus non-dualism helps.

DUALISM

GOD is both an automatic and an intelligent feedback control, genome organizing device.

NON-DUALISM

1. There's no such thing as an automatic or an intelligent feedback control, genome organizing device; or,
2. There's only an automatic feedback control, genome organizing device; or,
3. There's only an intelligent feedback control, genome organizing device.

No Exclamation

This has definitely not helped Exclamation

0 Replies

truth
Ican, I would like to discuss non-dualism with you, at least my understanding of it. But I cannot do so with regard to your "G.O.D." materials. Your treatment of this "either-or" conundrum is dualistic to the core. In your "non-dualism" treatment you ask if God is EITHER an automatic.... OR an intelligent..... That would seem closer to a dualistic model.
Your dualistic treatment is in terms of God as BOTH automatic AND intelligent. That would seem closer to the non-dualistic model.

Frankly, I cannot discuss non-dualism as an intellectual strategy. Fresco is able to do so. To me non-dualism is a pre-cognitive orientation; it's one's orientation when one just experiences a situation or event without categorizing or evaluating it. In other words, all attempts, as far as I'm concerned, to understand something or to analyze it is inherently dualistic. As such, there is nothing wrong with dualism as a thinking tool. It presents problems only when we try to understand the most basic nature of experience as a spiritual problem.

0 Replies

Leave it at what, JL? Are you going to explain yourself, or what?

0 Replies

truth
I might add, Ican, that the intellectual use of dualism generally suffers from a kind of absolutism in its analytical distinctions between facets of reality. By that I mean that reality is a unity, a unity containing internal variety and dialectical connections (this is, of course, a metaphysical presumption that stands up to mystical intuition). It is useful to make such distinctions, but it is epistemologically and ontologically questionable to treat them as absolute, as distinctions objectively fixed in reality. They are our constructions and must always be seen as such.

0 Replies

Sure, reality is a unity, but categories are helpful in describing that unity. Lacking the means to describe all of reality in one fell swoop, we tend to do it in parts.

0 Replies

Re: truth

JLNobody wrote:

To me non-dualism is a pre-cognitive orientation; it's one's orientation when one just experiences a situation or event without categorizing or evaluating it. In other words, all attempts, as far as I'm concerned, to understand something or to analyze it is inherently dualistic. As such, there is nothing wrong with dualism as a thinking tool. It presents problems only when we try to understand the most basic nature of experience as a spiritual problem.

Could you expand on your last sentence here.

Are you implying that if I were to understand that sentence correctly, then that would itself be inherently dualistic?

Are you also implying that if I were to avoid any attempt to understand that sentence correctly, then that would be non-dualistic.

0 Replies

truth
Ican, regarding the first question, check out the Reality thread. Regading the last two questions: No. By pre-cognitive I was not including a "turning away" from a thought. That is a kind of cognitive act. One can think and one can not think. They are both forms of cognition. In meditative practices one does not try not to think, because that is no different from thinking. Instead one develops a frame of mind wherein one observes "without" thinking. It would be very difficult to explain the difference between the pre-reflective "without thinking" and the reflective "not thinking." So if you do not "get it" intuitively, I'm sorry.

0 Replies

I "get" that, but not from intuition, but from experience. It is like dreaming - things still have meaning, just not the meanings that you would expect. We still categorize things, just not consciously, reverting back to categorizations that take less effort to maintain, whereas active thinking is a way of discovering new categories and widening your horizon.

Are you saying that it is impossible to know anything by categorizing it? I would think that that is the only way we CAN know anything.

0 Replies

Re: truth

JLNobody wrote:

By that I mean that reality is a unity, a unity containing internal variety and dialectical connections (this is, of course, a metaphysical presumption that stands up to mystical intuition). It is useful to make such distinctions, but it is epistemologically and ontologically questionable to treat them as absolute, as distinctions objectively fixed in reality. They are our constructions and must always be seen as such.

I readily concede that any attempt by me to understand something is dependent on a proper choice by me of axioms on which to base my understanding. By my use of the term axiom I mean self-evident truth, or as I, and I think you would put it, absolute truths: that which is true under any and all circumstances, none of which are known or understood by me.

It is this perception on my part that has lead me to abandon the search for absolute truths and their implications, and turn instead to the search implicit in my "able2know" signature that I borrowed from www.m-w.com :

Main Entry: prob·a·bi·lism
Pronunciation: 'prä-b&-b&-"li-z&m
Function: noun
Etymology: French probabilisme, from Latin probabilis probable
1 : a theory that in disputed moral questions any solidly probable course may be followed even though an opposed course is or appears more probable
2 : a theory that certainty is impossible especially in the sciences and that probability suffices to govern belief and action
- prob·a·bi·list /-list/ adjective or noun [emphasis is mine]

Basically, I think all of life is a gamble and so is the understanding of that which is witnessed or merely thought about in life. In this context, the utility of choice of dualism or non-dualism is reduced to that of intellectual amusement. So dualism is for me the dichotomy between that which is judged by me to be more probable and that which is less.

0 Replies

Re: truth

JLNobody wrote:

In meditative practices one does not try not to think, because that is no different from thinking. Instead one develops a frame of mind wherein one observes "without" thinking.

I think I understand what is meant by the concept observing without thinking. However, to the best of my recollection I have never experienced that. I know how to sense, perceive what I sense, and think about a tiny subset of that which I sense and perceive. But for me to develop a frame of mind that allows me to observe while unaware of thinking is not something I know how to do. With me there is always a kind of

Quote:

reflective hmmmmm

going on in my mind about something, even when I sleep and dream. Of course, when I sleep and don't dream Im unaware of either observing or thinking.

0 Replies

truth
Ican, you HAVE experienced this "without thinking" form of perception. Everybody has. It's our frame of mind during the first split second that we see something before "making sense" of it, before naming or categorizing it. Some people can maintain that frame for long period of time. This is known as shikantaza medition in Soto Zen meditation practice. It's a form of bare perception, which is inherently non-dualistic. Once we begin to think we adopt a dualistic frame of mind (but one's thinking can transcend dualism cognitively--cf. Fresco). Both serve certain functions.
When I referred to the monistic view of the world as a unity, with internal variety, as based on a metaphysical presumption, I was not referring so much to a consciously chosen axiom. I was referring more to a tacit presupposition, either stemming from one's cultural conditioning or an unconscious grounding coming from other sources (e.g., mystical intuition).

0 Replies

JL, I think I understand what your theory is. But deliberate suspention of thought is not something I know how to do.

I suppose I suffer two handicaps.

First, I don't know how to accomplish that suspension without thinking about how to accomplish that suspension, thereby fixing myself in a dualistic mode which of itself precludes the suspension.

Second, my disposition or inclination to figure it out cannot be developed without a motive or sense of purpose to figure it out, which if such motive existed would itself force me into the dualistic mode.

I assume there is something you have learned to do to solve these problems. What is that something and how did you learn it?

0 Replies

Is it wrong to be self-centered?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know