monism v. dualism

dualism v. monism

  • dualism
  • monism
0 voters

dualism is more widely accepted, but whaddya think and why?

I think it is because of our most immediate experience. We are constantly involved in an activity where self and Other are the two operating poles. Dualism takes this binary opposition and elevates it.

On Duality and Singularity:

Contrary to popular belief, the separation of the oneness of the universe through Duality into two separate properties is an illusory concept of the conciousness. The Singularity of the universe is apparently clear as no two things can exist without the other. The idea of separating Singularity comes from the thinking of finding an opposing counterpart to whatever property exists. In this sense, Duality is merely a path one travels to achieve understanding of Singularity. This concept is exemplified in a segment of lyrics by Rober Plant who said: “…and if you listen very hard, the tune will come to you at last, when all are one and one is all.”

-From The Book of Gnosis

does that mean you don’t believe in life after death therefore???

That depends on what you call life after death. I am open for interpretation on the subject.

Any notion of life after death is absurd. I would refer to life after death as a state where you can ‘‘think’’. You ask what he/she meant by life after death, well what about a state? Is there even a state other than being? Do ‘‘i’’ only last for as long as i am?

This is due to the cartesian picture of the mind, Descartes puts forward dualism, and the metaphors for his version of the mind remain socially ingrained to this very day.

They are logical nonsense (see my thread on sense data) but still society finds it very hard to break away.

where is this thread?
interesting, no one has questioned the fact that i said dualism is more widely accepted than monism, yet… look at the poll results. clearly it’s on the move!!

What???

Are we talking about dualism and monism as related to the mind/body problem? I assumed the opening poster was, but clearly a couple of posters, going by their replies, did not make this assumption. Indeed I have no idea what they are talking about.

So let me get to the definite statements:

OK, care to enlighten us as to why this is so?

Ok yukia, give your proof.

Ok, i will enlighten you ‘‘Interesting Ian’’ lol. I’m not here to prove to you that no afterlife exists, but maybe you would like to prove to everybody else why it does?

You said “life after death” is absurd. How does that require [b]me[/b] to prove anything?? You’ll also note that I did not declare that there is a life after death. I’ll admit though that I do not consider it absurd. How on earth is it absurd?

There is no order in life or the Universe, people who actually believe in an afterlife are talking about the deepest kind of dream, that is why it’s absurd. How we would all love life to have some kind of patterm, wouldn’t it be brilliant if i could fly through the sky and meet God at the end of my life. Infact, i wouldn’t care if god hated me, just as long as i still got to be ‘‘me’’. In heaven or in hell, i would still ‘‘be’’. That’s the most precious thing.

Ah! So you’re simply talking about your feelings here. A lot of people might say that ceasing to exist after death is also absurd. They might also justify their stance by saying that they feel this.

How therefore do we establish the truth? Why should your feelings correspond to the actual state of affairs as compared to someone elses?

A kind of Taoist monism has appealed to me for many years.

The everlasting Process of transformation continues. The Process was. The Process is. The Process will be. All forms are temporary, but the Process of transformation continues forever. The Process gave rise to the temporary form of me. Eventually this tempoary form will dissolve back into the Process. All that is me came together from somewhere else. Everthing that is me will keep going in other patterns.

If I think that I am this temporary pattern, then I will end, but if I realize that I am simply a part of the Process then I can see my immortality. I am not the formed, I am the Process which gives and takes away all forms. I am not the created, I am the Process which creates and destroys all creations. I am not the wave, I am the Ocean.

Just as you and everyone is the Process. We are not waves, we are all the Ocean, waving.

In case anyone is interested:
my favorite book on dualities is Martin Buber’s I and Thou.
He creates an ontic reciprocity that is both monism and dualism. what does the word unity mean? unity implies parts…but the parts make a whole. so the whole is one, but parts exist. the parts may not be able to exist without one another. is the “one” the relation between the parts?

Can we ever know the truth about death?

Sure it seems that way, and it seems the most practical answer. Until that day when the whole world is confronted by a ghost , and looks at each other and says “did 'ya see that?!,” I don’t think the general populace would consider the possibility to be a reasonable and practical scientific explaination for what events happen after death.

This is precisely why dualism is a creation of mysticism and really has no weight on the philosophic scales. The very statement itself “life after death is absurd” can be broken down and taken apart so much that one might go insane trying to make sense of it all. The statement certainly wouldn’t be true if your premise (life) did not entail all the characteristics of life. Its possible that death is just what we call “a once moving then motionless body,” and not the least bit relevant in the definition of the premise if life did, in fact, involve the possibility of making this reasonable empirical mistake in the first place as one of lifes conditions. The gray area between life and death can get so obscure that the two terms could almost become interchangable. I could argue either side and be just as convincing because the subject cannot be approached philosophically. It would beat itself.

I’m not saying that we live on after we die. I could argue all day, point out logical traps, disassemble propositions, find fallacies, whatever, I’m merely trying to show that as a philosophical subject dualism is destructive on a practical level.

I will say that I would like to live forever. I like life. But also I’d have to act as if I wasn’t immortal on a practical level. I don’t mind if I die.

Dualism is a discrete psychological error that pervades man up though his personal life and into his political and social realm. At this larger scale there are effects which may be destructive to the cooperational ability of all men of all races. Religions are formed and dualism is no longer a personal affect, it is now an established doctrine which plays a part in the foundation of the large scale politics…entire contries worship one God while another countries boo.

The reason why dualism creates a problem is because politics rely on philosophical principles as well, while dualism cannot even make it that far, politics forget the credibility and practicality of what was once a personal religion and allows it to become a foundation for its politics.

Long story short. There is no need for a dualism to exist for there to be spirituality, but dualism is needed to create friction in human civilization. And as stated before, there are a million and one dualisms, there are a million and one wars. There is one species. Either they are all spirits, or they are not. There is only monism.

Everyone has to live and either believe in God or not. But one thing we must do first is life among one another. If anything we believe conflicts with that simple process then its got to go.

Dualism is the current state…through process…perfect oneness is achieved.

Therefore, how am I to vote?

I didnt say substance dualism is logically inconsistent, I pointed to the fact that cartesian substance dualism as well as any notice of internal representations of the external world are logically nonsense.

Addiitionally I challenge any Cartesian Dualists to answer me how something that is, by definition, none-extended (in space time) affects something that is extended.

I say it’s impossible for this to happen, since it is inconsistant to suggest that something that exists outside the laws of physics can influence something within those laws of physics. If this were so we’d have lots of scientific anomolies occuring around whatever location you think the intereaction takes place.

Additionally conservation of energy theory points out that energy doesnt come from no where so I think it is fairly illogical to suggest that somehow energy (forces) are being exerted on physical objects by non-physical ones.