Non-duality ~ ~ "I AM THAT"

By unlearning everything else

If you start out with the assumption that there is 1 world, and that all the things in it as we percieve them are merely fractions of this 1, subdivided into smaller objects that we then categorize and relate to individually, you end up where we are now. From there, just go back

Yes, there is only ONE reality, yet we divide it into portions and pieces, a necessary operation if we are to analyze and think about the "objects" of our experience--and to treat our"SELVES" as reference points for such experiences. I can't imagine how we could survive without dualism. Yet I can also see how it, when it is not seen for what it is, can hamper our spiritual appreciation of the UNITY of the world, including our integration with it.

Yes.
For myself, I consider this process of dividing things to be only half the process.
Like creating a piece of music.
During the creation you have to pay attention to every single note, and during this process the notes themselves have their own identity. But then, when the whole thing is written this multitude of identities gives way to the larger scheme. As the final stroke is layed down, when you percieve the song as "finished", it becomes one single "entity". The private beauty of any single note is no longer assigned any value, but it's contribution to the total beauty of the song is priceless.

Music is a great analogy. Each note has its ontological reality, but only as sound, not as music. To have MUSICAL reality it depends on its relationship to all other notes in the unitary "score". As such, there are both independent sounds (yin) and co-dependent notes (yang). To transcend dualism we must recognize both the independence and co-dependence of phenomena. As Fresco has emphasized, the essential character of the world is the concert of all its RELATIONSHIPS (just as a musical phenomenon is the body of relationships between its notes (and beats and rests, of course). And we see yin or yang depending on the perspective (focus) we adopt. We realize, however, that each cannot exist without the other.

Yes. And to take it a bit further...
...this only holds true from a human point of view.
In the human perspective, dualism and non-dualism are percieved continually and simultaneously. The total experience of living is a mix of both these concepts, so in order to trancend dualism I think you would also have to trancend non-dualism.
After all, the very concept of non-dualism is in itself the dualistic counterpart to another perspective.
To percieve both requires no effort. We do it by virtue of what we are.
To trancend them is to master them, in a way. To consciously create the mix of dualistic concepts that converge in a non-dualistic experience that benefits the particular moment, the supreme goal being to exist in happiness and well being. And when that point is reached, the next step becomes to do this without concious effort.
It seems to me that a person who has reached this point has achieved as near as perfect understanding and existence as is possible in our human form.

Yes, Cryacuz, it is SO important that we transcend both dualism and non-dualism, and in meditation we learn to do that "without conscious effort."

And, of course, the ONLY perspective of relevance is the human point of view.

I've always been curious what is created with philosophy.

I know I've objected to any number of philosophies based on what they achieve (or don't achieve)...but everything we do (or don't do) creates our lives...even philosophies. The only question is what is created. ?

For me, philosophy is a by-product of existence. It's just how my mind works. But then, I rarely spend time reading anything that's meant to be a work of philosophy. And when I do it's because I have some interest in history. These books can give us some insights into the minds of people living in a certain time, what they thought of as important, and the frames they sought to put it in.

Just posting to ask if anyone has read Mihaly Csikszentmihalhi's article on 'The flow experience and its significance for human psychology' (kicky you may be interested).

I just read it, and it wrapped so many ideas up into neat parcels for me it was immense. It's one of the best things i've read. Just wondered if anyone had any thoughts.

Vikorr, you ask WHAT it is that is created (constructed?) by philosophy. One might say it creates values (ideals and goals) that guide action, and one might also say that the very processes of inquiry and model construction render life (during the process at least) as interesting and meaningful. Someone asked me once why I advocated a liberal arts education; I answered that it makes our lives and our minds more interesting and worth living. That is also true of philosophy and the arts.

Hi JL,

Yes, I guess that constructed/created are somewhat interchangable in this instance....though what I mean is truly more than that, because it is both constructed, and just is...and it is the relationships, and interactions and rewards and detriments that most people would just say 'occur'.

Thanks for the reply. One of the funny things I noticed about many (not all) deeply philosophical people is that they don't 'do' anything...the creation is in their head, and never makes it out into the world.

Philosphy as a guiding set of values/ideals is good, as is rendering life interesting and meaningful.

Some philosophies I see no purpose to (ie they don't readily provide any of the above)...when I say 'no purpose' I mean, they don't provide access to creation of life.

I would call that "searching for God"

That I am with.