If one object exists then it can be said that this is everything. When you introduce another object, then neither can be said to everything. there would come into existance a third thing in order for the two to exist together. In order for these objects to be distinct from each other there could be no third shared space through which information could travel, as this would amount to a single system. If two things can be distinct from each other then they would necessarily be unaware of each other, and so therefore in effect alone, as soon as they become aware of each other then they are a system and so therefore one thing. Even in our universe there is not one true boundary that distinguish one object from it’s neighbour, the whole universe is one system.
duality is unity’s favorite mask
I don’t think dualism generally asserts that the two different ‘things’ cannot be part of one system. But this one system is uniting radically different ‘things’. I can relate to females but there is not one sex because we are ‘in relationship’ or in a single system.
okay, let us assume unity within a system
i was born twenty-some years ago, and happened to be male rather than female, and gradually became more aware of myself
i’ll exist for a short time more before i inevitably meet my fate - what, then, becomes of my gender?
i guess that would depend on whether or not one believes in some form of subsistence or soul, some origin or ground of Being and eternal unity
in that case, i think it would be absurd to see anything about one’s physical organism to manifest itself in whatever ‘afterlife’ there may be
if one prefers the opposite perspective, that we are what we are for a time before death pulls the plug on one’s consciousness - then gender may well be a metaphysical distinction, for all intents and purposes
the question is, then: what is the relationship between two antipodes in a given polarity? are opposites eternally at odds, or do they ultimately blend into a polar unity? what of definition, of necessity?
Human beings can’t survive without a certain bacteria in their colon called E. Coli (not to be confused with the cow e-coli that can sicken us in poisoned food). There are numerous examples of symbiotic relationships in nature where a being can’t be said to exist without another being performing it’s functioning. In this sense, biologically human beings are a duality of two different life forms (there are actually other life forms that help in the functioning of the human body, but let’s stick with this one), although the participation of the part of one is minor. However minor though, it is essential for human sruvival.
I believe a similar notion of a symbiotic relationship between body and soul easily defeats your argument. I’m not saying that I believe it to be the case, but I don’t see your argument as refuting all reasonable conceptions of a body-soul dualism.
Theoretical physicists have postulated “parallel universes” where we and other objects exist in several different planes of existence, and each parallel universe contains a different outcome for every thing in the universe. A tree that grows 100 years in our universe was felled by lightning in another. It’s a bit wild I grant, but suppose if these parallel universes exist, but the different instances of us are somehow connected together so that we’re the same entity on multiple different planes? That’s a lot of hand waving I know, but in such a scenario you have almost a cross universal symbiosis.
What, please, would you consider an ‘object’? What is it’s ‘substance’?
Perceptions of ‘objects’ is all we can evidence.
Dualism/context/Perspective is the only way that anything can be perceived from the chaos/monism of Mind. The limitations of Perspective allow us to perceive that which is not perceivable, that which is not.
Context is duality. Existence is perceived context.
All existence can only be ‘dualism/contextual’; this is not that or that but like ‘this’ but not ‘that’… The context of the entire uni-verse is necessary for the complete definition of any ‘one thing’. So, the uni-verse is a Oneness/unity of features of perceived context/dualism; One Complete Tapestry of Existence featuring many unique threads (Perspectives = us).
The definition/description of the entire complete uni-verse is the sum-total of all Perspectives.
Monism is perfect symmetry; no features, no qualities, no anything, ineffable. Nothing to perceive. The inherent limitations of Perspective allows us to perceive ‘context/duality’ and thus, what we perceive as existence.
Duality is all that can exist.
As to what I mean by object, anything you like as long as it exists in isolation. Whatever you call it, it’s alone until you introduce another. In order to do this you need space, which must be shared along with something to share information between the two. This shows that in order for two consciousnesses to be aware of each other there must be mutual parts, or the whole is mutual as I believe to be the case.
^^^
‘Space’ is the relationship between objects; no objects, no space.
There is only one Consciousness.
There is no substance, only energy, which is always in motion and tension.
In order to understand or interpret motion and tension we have to think in terms of extremes. A motion or tension, we reason, occurs between point a and point b.
This gives rise to dualism - we believe that point a and b are things in themselves. From another perspective they are only functions of the motion and tension.
‘Energy’ is ‘substance’ is ‘energy’.
E=MC^2
No difference in ‘substance’ between the ‘two’.
nameless wrote:
This statement is I think the kind of irrefutable knowledge that should be classed as fact.
object A has parts exclusive to and necessary to object A.
object B has parts exclusive to and necessary to object B.
In order for A to be aware of B there must be an exchange of parts.
If A takes part of B then it is then both A and B.
So it follows that the only thing its possible to be aware of is something that is a part of you.
jakob wrote:
When you say that there is only energy, you are acknowledging a singular existence. A single thing that gives rise to any reality would only be aware of the reality it creates, the motion and tension that occurs between points within that whole, are changes in it’s state, the only divisions that can be made arise from the functions of the parts. The parts belong to the whole, and the whole is unaware of things that may or may not exist externally, the concept of external is one that cannot be proved owing to the fact that any attempt at proving it would only lead to a furthering of your horizon, you would just enlarge your still singular existance, whatever you learnt about would become part of your reality and you would still be bounded by the unknown.
yea…for some time now i have not believed this equation to be true…i came to this discovery awhile back but i am not 100 percent certain of it so i can not list it as a fundamental truth…BUT i am very much convinced that this equation is false…reason being is that existence itself is movement- a force- this force can not be measured because we are made of it. anything that we witness even if its an atomic bomb it will not be stronger then the force of existence…yet this equation for energy calls for mass…this equations states that in order to have energy you must have mass- if you can not measure the force of existence because we are made of the force of existence then you would conclude that the force of existence does not have mass- therefore the equation is false- it only applies to things with mass- it does not apply to everything beacause that would mean that existence itself has zero energy because it does not have mass- and how can existence itself have zero energy but yet is stronger then everything else that it contains in this entire world??? unless you say that existence itself is of a force that is different from energy the equation is wrong 
Duality does exist. So does monism. They’re just not both universals all the time in all places. Am I missing something here?
The wisest thing said in this thread so far.
Thanks.
smears wrote:
Your definitely missing the point, in the first place they could not exist together. If duality exists within monism then the duality is not actual, what is actual is monism.
Secondly the concept of two things existing with the ability to be aware of each other despite there defined boarders, must be false. Unless I’m missing something, this is not unlikely so please explain what you think a “place” is, if it is not part of monism, if it is part of it then it monism exists alone, no duality, other than some necessarily fictional mental idea of duality that is in reality impossible.
Yes. Understand what a ‘monism’ is, and the implications. A ‘monism’ cannot exist, as 'existence is solely contextual, and there can be no ‘context’ in ‘monism’.
Duality (context) is existence is the Universe at “all times and places”! It is an ‘appearance’ (to Perspective) within Monism (= no context = no existence). Existence, that which ‘appears’ to be, is a feature of that which ‘Is’, Mind/Consciousness.
“Consciousness is the Ground of All Being!” (QM)
…
I don’t understand what’s so difficult in grasping that there can be one system with two (or more) components?