A Wholistic Duality

[wesmorris]

I was watching the sopranos the other night and some character who was supposed to be super smart was talking about the illusion of individuality. I can't remember exactly what he said, but it was something like:

They were watching a fight on TV in a hospital room and dude says "okay, I'll explain... see those fighters there on the tv? That they are inviduals is an illusion. We think of them as separate, distinct entities because that's how we choose to see them. Rather, try thinking of them as waves on the ocean - each just part of the ocean's pattern of energy"

- or something like that.

So.. the thing is, I think this is somewhat misleading, and that the truth of the matter is actually a duality... depending on how you frame the terms. Conceptually however, I think there is a dual truth in there.

I believe his statement is true, but its counter is also true. I do not believe either is "an illusion" though, and find it somewhat annoying that people insist on referring to it as such.

I believe that a person is both an indistinct feature of the whole, and a separate - unique entity.

I see this as a "quantum state" of sorts, in that when you choose one the other becomes untrue.

Ah, I see... okay: that both are true I would classify as "an objective truth" as in, when projected into conceptual being, and all subjectiveness removed... that's what you'd be left with. But as soon as the "quantum state" is collapsed by perspective undertaking its analysis... if one becomes true THEN the other becomes false.

Dig?

 

[EmptyForceOfChi]

yeah i dug a little too deep and forgot what i was going to say,


but i agree etc, kinda mostly, ?


peace.

 

[wesmorris]

Is it confusing or something? Was I completely unclear?

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

Is it confusing or something? Was I completely unclear?

You were very clear oh mighty Wes,

to summarise: we are seperate units, but we are part of the same whole

Not so much perception thing (although everything can boil down to this but it is point to end all points so we'll ignore that one) more a case of not being aware of what is connecting us all and what that whole is?

 

[EmptyForceOfChi]

Is it confusing or something? Was I completely unclear?

no not atall, it was just late then, and my brain was not properly functioning,

itn was clear and easy to understand, i just confused myself like i do sometimes,

my brain has 2 conflicting halfs, my left side and my right side always compete to answer and i usually end up manualy mixing up the 2 arguments and meet myself in the middle somewhere, and sometimes this proccess confuses me when i am running on no sleep.


peace.

 

[wesmorris]

Does the "it's just an illusion" thing piss anyone else off? Gets on my last nerve for some reason. It's hard to explain exactly why, other than to say it ISN'T an illusion, it's as real as anything. Thought is real. Feelings are real. Perception is our only link to reality, and it in and of itself is also real. The interpretation of said perception may or may not be based in reality, but itself is just as real as the rest of it.

Bah.

I suppose to me it's extremely egotistical to assert to someone else that their perception of being is completely delusional.

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

Does the "it's just an illusion" think piss anyone else off? Gets on my last nerve for some reason. It's hard to explain exactly why, other than to say it ISN'T an illusion, it's as real as anything. Thought is real. Feelings are real. Perception is our only link to reality, and it in and of itself is also real. The interpretation of said perception may or may not be based in reality, but itself is just as real as the rest of it.

Bah.

It's a tricky one,

I guess the best way forward is to say that it's 'our reality' we are discussing as oppose to 'THE' reality. That gets rid of the 'it's just an illusion' argument.

We are basically having discussion about the 'illusion' we all share?

Sensory deprivation experiments give some very odd results, and I know my dreams (if lucid) are every bit as real as this reality. Pain included!
So the question of 'how real' is this after all, does arise, but as I say if we can at the beginning of discussion, state we are discussing our shared (all be it possibly illusionary) reality, we can get on with the discussion without getting held up at first post arguing the toss over this.

 

[Quantum Quack]

I was watching the sopranos the other night and some character who was supposed to be super smart was talking about the illusion of individuality. I can't remember exactly what he said, but it was something like:

They were watching a fight on TV in a hospital room and dude says "okay, I'll explain... see those fighters there on the tv? That they are inviduals is an illusion. We think of them as separate, distinct entities because that's how we choose to see them. Rather, try thinking of them as waves on the ocean - each just part of the ocean's pattern of energy"

- or something like that.

So.. the thing is, I think this is somewhat misleading, and that the truth of the matter is actually a duality... depending on how you frame the terms. Conceptually however, I think there is a dual truth in there.

I believe his statement is true, but its counter is also true. I do not believe either is "an illusion" though, and find it somewhat annoying that people insist on referring to it as such.

I believe that a person is both an indistinct feature of the whole, and a separate - unique entity.

I see this as a "quantum state" of sorts, in that when you choose one the other becomes untrue.

Ah, I see... okay: that both are true I would classify as "an objective truth" as in, when projected into conceptual being, and all subjectiveness removed... that's what you'd be left with. But as soon as the "quantum state" is collapsed by perspective undertaking its analysis... if one becomes true THEN the other becomes false.

Dig?

I think Wes you need to clarify this with more scenarios. I like where it is heading but am not sure of what you are attempting to describe.

Possibly it is worth considering that the use of polarised extremes such as "true" of "false" can be counter productive. I find it better to think of things as true and less true rather than to consider something as false. Or you could say false and less false which is probably more in line with conventional depreciations of reality.

Which brings up the negative connotations of the word "illusion" which often provokes associations of fraud or trickery and deception. The philosophy of considering the truth as unavailable leads inevitabely to the conclusion that everything is in some way false, thus the negative use of the word illusion.

As I have posted elsewhere I believe that dualism is essentially an objective reality. That the reflective nature of everything is a fundamental of how this reality we share functions.
I do feel though as you develop your line of enquiry you will eventuallly see this also.

 

[duendy]

Ambiguity. the insight that 'either/or' is inadequate to try and grasp reality

YES there are two separate objects there. YES they are interelated

knowing 'one' definition doesn't cancel out the other definition. it is rather a limited rationalitytrying to do so, if it does. if it --mind--IDENTIFIES wqith ratio-nality and assumes it can measure everything. it cant. you CA measure, but tere is a point where reality is beyond measurement. se we have 'measurement' and 'immeasureability'. mterial-energetic process and consciousness

 

[wesmorris]

Nah QQ, not "shades of grey". I'm talking about polar situations.

Where to be one, you are the opposite of the other thus subjectively cancelling the other.

Like belief in god...

First a nuetral example:

Consider a circle...

The circle is half black and half white, straight down the middle... kind of like a yin-yang but without the curves or complementary dots. We call label the sides "yes" and "no".

You can be in either half of the circle and if you are, you are. To BE in that half, you have to BE in that half. If you really are "yes", no doesn't make any sense to you. You cannot relate to no because you are yes. No is false.

If you are no, then you cannot relate to yes. Yes is not no and can never be.

But the truth, the objective truth... it's in the circle.

Yes and no are subjective truths, because to know them, you have to be them and to be them is to exclude the other half. A consequence of being one of them though, is that you lose the capacity to relate to the other.

YES QQ, this is the extreme example and shades of grey could be relevant to another mode of analysis of the same problem... but for now, I'm looking at extremes to examine some of the properties of the behavior of the system.

Religion comes to mind.

Culture as well.

It's not right to fart on your sister.

It's just not.

To think that it isn't and accept that fully, I cannot think it's okay to fart on my sister. Thus, "fart on my sister" is false, and claims to the contrary are simply unrelatable.

And of course the opposite.

But the real objective truth is that "it can be okay to fart on my sister, or it cannot be okay to fart on my sister". This is like a quantum state, wherein it exists "in a vaccum" so to speak until a perspective adopts a position. While one position or the other is undertaken, the "quantum state" is collapsed, and the position of one or the other becomes "true".

 

[wesmorris]

Here's an example:

Isn't it the natural order of things to know there is a god?

thanks

See what I mean?

I respect this, and find it telling. IMO, a "true believer"... aka, someone fully committed to their premise must have the attitude displayed above. I respect the commitment, but don't really have a horse in the race... so I can see it for what it is. He, by the nature of his commitment, collapses the "quantum state" into a truth that cannot be questioned. Conversely, others do the same thing to the opposite conclusion.

 

[duendy]

the yin yang symbol shows dynamism, and notice that in each 'tadpole'? is a speck of polar opposite, and its to be thoght of as movng. like light and shade of mountain

an older symbol for polar related reality is the Caduceus, the rod with two twining serpents.

Dualism IS when one 'opposite' cancels out the 'other'. hence we get conlict, 'dark' light' 'good' bad' Nature 'spirit'

So te insight, which isn't atatic is to feel this dynamism aS a continuum

the climax of the direct experience ofpolar related reality is ecstasy. but you cannot be in tis state ALL the time, for nothing is static, hence 'ec-static'

BUt having OPENED to such ecstasy, its integration whn in a more 'ordinary' state will be more........dynamic. Ambiguous

 

[Quantum Quack]

the yin yang symbol shows dynamism, and notice that in each 'tadpole'? is a speck of polar opposite, and its to be thoght of as movng. like light and shade of mountain

an older symbol for polar related reality is the Caduceus, the rod with two twining serpents.

Dualism IS when one 'opposite' cancels out the 'other'. hence we get conlict, 'dark' light' 'good' bad' Nature 'spirit'

So te insight, which isn't atatic is to feel this dynamism aS a continuum

the climax of the direct experience ofpolar related reality is ecstasy. but you cannot be in tis state ALL the time, for nothing is static, hence 'ec-static'

BUt having OPENED to such ecstasy, its integration whn in a more 'ordinary' state will be more........dynamic. Ambiguous

Just thinking about the 'ole yin yang symbol and how I have always felt it's normal depiction to be an slight error of philosophy.
Let me explain.
Usually the symbol shows to "tadpoles" of equal volume, a state of balance. Yet in life we do not wish for this balance for to have this balance movement is stopped. What I thought should be depcted is the two tadpoles slightly diffreent in volume so that a differential is demonstrated that allows for movement of perpetual change. What I see with the usual depiction, is stasis.

For instance when people practice chakra or yogic healing they often I feel make the mistake of striving for perfect balance when in fact what they should be striving for is a harmonious imbalance, or an imbalance that is more acceptable. To strive for perfect balance is tantamount to striving for death and I am sure this is not what people are really wanting to achieve.

To promote change or movement there has to be a differential in pressure or sufference. With out this differential stasis or "death" is the outcome. [ mind you in absolute the act of dying is a state of imbalance but death itself is perfect balance, or so I would hypothesise]

What do you think?

 

[RoyLennigan]

I was watching the sopranos the other night and some character who was supposed to be super smart was talking about the illusion of individuality. I can't remember exactly what he said, but it was something like:

They were watching a fight on TV in a hospital room and dude says "okay, I'll explain... see those fighters there on the tv? That they are inviduals is an illusion. We think of them as separate, distinct entities because that's how we choose to see them. Rather, try thinking of them as waves on the ocean - each just part of the ocean's pattern of energy"

- or something like that.

So.. the thing is, I think this is somewhat misleading, and that the truth of the matter is actually a duality... depending on how you frame the terms. Conceptually however, I think there is a dual truth in there.

I believe his statement is true, but its counter is also true. I do not believe either is "an illusion" though, and find it somewhat annoying that people insist on referring to it as such.

I believe that a person is both an indistinct feature of the whole, and a separate - unique entity.

I see this as a "quantum state" of sorts, in that when you choose one the other becomes untrue.

Ah, I see... okay: that both are true I would classify as "an objective truth" as in, when projected into conceptual being, and all subjectiveness removed... that's what you'd be left with. But as soon as the "quantum state" is collapsed by perspective undertaking its analysis... if one becomes true THEN the other becomes false.

Dig?

i think i agree with you. i would describe it like this; we are all part of the same energy that makes up this universe as a whole piece, but our distinct physical bodies are made unique by our personal limitations within that energy. we would not be us, if we did not have everything that is around us. its like gluing the ends of strings of different material and color to a single ball and then throwing it around.

 

[nameless]

Wholistic Duality
Oxymoronic bullshit.
Bang!!!
<screech of tires>
Gone before the emotional attacks can begin.
Dust settles.

(Truth goes through three stages.
First, it is vehemently and emotionally attacked and denied.
Next, it is ridiculed.
Third, it is declared as 'obvious' and has been known all along! -A. Shopenhauer)

 

[wesmorris]

Wholistic Duality
Oxymoronic bullshit.
Bang!!!
<screech of tires>
Gone before the emotional attacks can begin.
Dust settles.

How very enlightening. Thanks for clearing it all up for us.

(Truth goes through three stages.
First, it is vehemently and emotionally attacked and denied.
Next, it is ridiculed.
Third, it is declared as 'obvious' and has been known all along! -A. Shopenhauer)

Uh... what would you know of truth? What of it have you presented? "oxymoronic bullshit" is all you've said. Might as well have not said anything. Your grudging negativity is duly noted.

 

[wesmorris]

i think i agree with you. i would describe it like this; we are all part of the same energy that makes up this universe as a whole piece, but our distinct physical bodies are made unique by our personal limitations within that energy. we would not be us, if we did not have everything that is around us. its like gluing the ends of strings of different material and color to a single ball and then throwing it around.

What I find interesting about it for some reason is the exclusion factor. If you are or choose one, the other is excluded and sight of the whole is lost. If you then question the one you are, you are no longer exactly it, so the other pieces could come back into view.

I suppose what fascinates me about it is something about how these things come to be in a mind.... that minds change to be one or the other based on their circumstance, and that circumstance can be so compelling that questioning the issue at hand can be utterly unfathomable - like truly religious folks and such, or dedicated positive athiests. It's interesting to me to ponder whether or not such positions can be penetrated by questions.

 

[wesmorris]

the yin yang symbol shows dynamism, and notice that in each 'tadpole'? is a speck of polar opposite, and its to be thoght of as movng. like light and shade of mountain

Okay, but I wasn't really talking about a yin yang...

check this:

kind of like a yin-yang but without the curves or complementary dots

 

[Theoryofrelativity]

This may or may not help? Using your black/white circle analogy:

I am 'black' yet I accept that black may be wrong and acknowledge and know the existance of white. However I do not like the colour 'white' and so I will stick regardless of 'questions' 'evidence' with black. Black is where I want to be. Black is my comfort zone and I do not, will not move from it, as the 'white' zone represents an unsafe place.

It's interesting to me to ponder whether or not such positions can be penetrated by questions.

If you questioned me re 'black' I know I do not have the answers or that my answers will be inadequate but your need for those answers is not my need. I have no need of those answers. I have no need to know what I think is right. I need it to be right, more than I want it to be right. I will be black for as long as I can, as white is not an alternative for me.

Hence when some religious are challenged and questioned on their beliefs, they are unwavering despite proof to the contrary of what they believe. The alternative is known but not desirable. This may be one reason.

 

[wesmorris]

This may or may not help? Using your black/white circle analogy:

I am 'black' yet I accept that black may be wrong and acknowledge and know the existance of white.

Then IMO, you are not truly black. IMO, you cannot believe something and doubt it simultaneously. Either is fine, but is exclusive of the other. By this I mean if you accept that black may be wrong, you don't really believe black, but you're tentatively going with it for lack of something better. In this case, you have done as I stated above... allowed a glimpse of the whole back into your perspective.

However I do not like the colour 'white' and so I will stick regardless of 'questions' 'evidence' with black.

Gawd I'm a sucker for an english accent. *sigh* (colour)

Okay, well.. then I'd say you're confused and don't commit to either black or white... I'd say your acceptance of black over white is a lie you tell yourself to justify your choice.

Black is where I want to be. Black is my comfort zone and I do not, will not move from it, as the 'white' zone represents an unsafe place.

Indeed. White threatens your lie.

If you questioned me re 'black' I know I do not have the answers or that my answers will be inadequate but your need for those answers is not my need. I have no need of those answers. I have no need to know what I think is right. I need it to be right, more than I want it to be right. I will be black for as long as I can, as white is not an alternative for me.

Agreed. To maintain your state of denial, white must be denied. You must also twist your view of the whole to favor black.

Hence when some religious are challenged and questioned on their beliefs, they are unwavering despite proof to the contrary of what they believe. The alternative is known but not desirable. This may be one reason.

Yup. It's a question of comfort I agree. All those whose council you seek, all those who you've ever loved have been actual believers. They do not daudle with black as you do. They ARE IT, and white is not okay. Thus you've twisted your view to accomodate the propaganda that supports black and denies white. Your mind however, develops discontinuities of which you are apparently at least vaguely aware, and you seek to avoid them, or patch them up so they appear as a smooth part of your mental landscape.

Just a generalization of course. It works differently for different people, but I think that's the common gist.

Which ultimately fascinates me, that with the whole plainly ascertainable (or perhaps not depending on the mind in question)... we are still stuck with the conceptual framework we've laid based on our percieved circumstance.

No that's not it. What fascinates me is the mechanism of the relationships I'm digging at. I find it utterly funky and cool that something like that exists. It's like a switch of some kind, somewhat like a transister actually.. maybe a bastardized diode... but made purely of abstracts. Fucking fascinating indeed.

Okay, really it's like switch I suppose. The switch can be on or off. When it's on, it's still part of the switch.. but the current is flowing, and from the perspective of the current, there is no switch.. there is only the flow. When it's off, there is no flow.. no such thing as flow. What do you mean flow? There's nothing flowing through here, are you crazy? Know what i mean?

But off and on are both just part of the switch.

Meh. I just think it's kind of an interesting relationship.