Non-dual thinking is not monistic thinking. Although non-duality implies “not two” it surely does not mean “well…one”. The non-absolutism in non-duality seems to emphasize the importance of relation. A monism can mean a unity and unities also imply a relation between parts. A unity says something about the nature of the parts’ relation. At the same time, unities can be so “one-sidded” as to really become a dogmatic duality.
Does anyone know why non-dual thinkers reject monisms? Is a monism a duality in disguise? Can non-duality ever imply unity?
thanks a lot.

To know that all is one, there must be one to notice; 1 + 1 = 2.

Thought is duality. Its reality is the subjective state, the ‘inner’. Without the ‘inner’, there is no ‘outer’, so they are a joint phenomenon. Thought can point to the non-dual, but there is no such thing as non-dual thinking.

but isn’t upholding the subject/object duality the mistake of modernity in philosophy? descartes is the poster boy for this. doesn’t heidegger attempt to escape this problem with dasein (beingthere) and the ‘there’?

The only way to escape logic is to abandon it.

This is the page of aphorisms it seems.

By asking this question about monisms and non-duality I am not trying to escape logic. For better or worse. I’m trying to solve a problem in logic.

Let me rephrase my question:
What is the difference between monisms and dualities?

This seems easy at first…but maybe its not.
If a monism posits X, then its opposite is (of course) not X. Maybe not x and x are a dynamic unity.
A system of dualities is similar, but not the same. Atleast a monism admitts of relation and non-absolutism. but, at the same time, can a monism be absolutist? There is no other other than THE ONE?
Does anyone have a wise word as to how to sort out these thoughts?

a non-dualist who rejects monism,

how about the most famous ‘dualist’ of all time? Descartes.

He was actually (arguably) a trialist Body, Mind/Soul, God.

Since God seems to be implicitley a different substance than either body or mind.

1 and 1/2

Can a monism be treated as an object? An object in relation to what?

Alexistentialism asks: Does anyone know why non-dual thinkers reject monisms? Is a monism a duality in disguise? Can non-duality ever imply unity?

Because it is not quite clear who are the non-dual thinkers I will suppose that you have in mind thaoist way of thinking as described in OSHO’S work Hsin Hsin Ming: The Book abouth nothing, which describes taoist notion of wu chi - emptines whic actualy means that there is (no)thing (s) and explains the notion of the way as the way of no-reason. Because in the moment when you start to apply division or principle of difference you are in the proces of reasoning but with analitical reason you can’t describe the wholines or great unity or tao which represents harmony of two oposite but interwowen principles - see: the singn of Tai Chi known as ying and yang sign. wich represent the supreme being.

The term monism is on the other hand notion of western philosophy and claims that exsist yust one substance spirit or matter but not both.

As a monist you can be spiritualist or materialist but not both. In tha way someone could argue that your way of thinkink is one-sided.

Greg

Doesn’t being a monist imply that you are both?

Hi to All:

I am not sure if this helps, but there is more than one kind of logic. Basically Aristotelian, or Boolean, where the values can only be True or False. Another kind is multi valued logic (sometimes referred to as fuzzy logic) where truth can take on the values of True, False, or Unknown.

In Mathematics a guy named Leopold Kronecker would not allow Not (Not A) to equal A, which is a form of multi valued logic. This effects a huge portion of Mathematics because all Proofs by Induction are invalidated and most existence proofs would also be invalid.

The vast majority of Mathematicians simply consider their work to be Boolean and do not bother with this problem.

However, multi valued logic is employed in quantum mechanics with some success.

Descartes is classed as a substance dualist meaning he did believe, like Plato in 2 distinct substances…whether God is a substance, however is arguable .

I suppose you could go down the route of Property Dualism, which holds that mental and physical properties are fundamentally distinct. There is only one sort of substance but it has two basic sorts of properties. Mental properties cannot be reduced to physical ones or vice versa. This means that minds are not substances of a different metaphyiscal type from physical bodies, so it kinda fits in with a mterialise view of mind :S.

However having a particular mental property is not simply equivalent to being in a particular physical state, e.g. a particular brain state. So propert dualists believe that the mental properties constitute an autonomous domain which resists reduction to the physical domain.

But that doesn’t solve the problem…I think the major distinction between dualism and monism for me is the use of language…dualism, especially substance dualism specifically refers to two seperate substances, suggesting they’re oppositional, whiich is how you get the interaction problem, etc. Monism however seems to bypass this problem by allowing for the fact that although the substances may be different, they’re not seperate…does that make sense? I could be wrong on this as I’m not an expert and it’s a personal view Feel free to shoot it down