Duality or Spectrum?
This is a question that has been bothering me.
I've come across many exchanges which claim that something can't be understood without understanding it's opposite. A common example from religious apologists is ''for good to exist, evil must exist'' using this to explain the existence of evil.
There is truth in this and I ''understand'' it indirectly from language. Every word has an antonym and where no specific word exists we can always create one using denial terminology such as ''not'' or ''no''.
There is also the difference between contradiction and contrary if we dive deeper into the issue.
Two propositions/terms are contradictory if they're mutually exclusive and mutually exhaustive. [I]Good[/i] and Not good are contradictory predicates as they exclude each other (they can't be both true) and and they are mutually exhaustive (both can't be false) when we use them on a subject.
Contrary terms are mutually exlcusive (both can't be true) but are not exhaustive (both can be false). For example theism and atheism are contraries because we have agnosticism which is neither.
So, it's a fact that we view the world in terms of opposites (contradictions and contraries).
Although contradictions are logically stronger as we can deduce more from it, the world actually is about contraries.Not red can be more than just one color - green, yellow, violet, etc.
That however doesn't mean the use of opposites, which people refer to as duality, isn't true.
Duality is true.
My question is, is it a necessary feature for understanding or is it contingent?
Can a world exist without duality?
At first glance it seems impossible for a world without duality or the more general contrast. Everything can be denied, automatically generating a dichotomy - duality.
Addendum: Some posters have claimed that a world without opposites can't exist. Yet, if we observe human planning behavior it is exactly a world without duality that we're aiming at. Happiness for all, call it heaven or utopia, is a world sans pain/suffering - a world missing half of the duality of pain-joy.
I've come across many exchanges which claim that something can't be understood without understanding it's opposite. A common example from religious apologists is ''for good to exist, evil must exist'' using this to explain the existence of evil.
There is truth in this and I ''understand'' it indirectly from language. Every word has an antonym and where no specific word exists we can always create one using denial terminology such as ''not'' or ''no''.
There is also the difference between contradiction and contrary if we dive deeper into the issue.
Two propositions/terms are contradictory if they're mutually exclusive and mutually exhaustive. [I]Good[/i] and Not good are contradictory predicates as they exclude each other (they can't be both true) and and they are mutually exhaustive (both can't be false) when we use them on a subject.
Contrary terms are mutually exlcusive (both can't be true) but are not exhaustive (both can be false). For example theism and atheism are contraries because we have agnosticism which is neither.
So, it's a fact that we view the world in terms of opposites (contradictions and contraries).
Although contradictions are logically stronger as we can deduce more from it, the world actually is about contraries.Not red can be more than just one color - green, yellow, violet, etc.
That however doesn't mean the use of opposites, which people refer to as duality, isn't true.
Duality is true.
My question is, is it a necessary feature for understanding or is it contingent?
Can a world exist without duality?
At first glance it seems impossible for a world without duality or the more general contrast. Everything can be denied, automatically generating a dichotomy - duality.
Addendum: Some posters have claimed that a world without opposites can't exist. Yet, if we observe human planning behavior it is exactly a world without duality that we're aiming at. Happiness for all, call it heaven or utopia, is a world sans pain/suffering - a world missing half of the duality of pain-joy.
Comments (24)
p v ~p
Yes, it seems impossible.
How about a person kept in isolation from birth in a happy place without any form of suffering. Would he ever know the suffering-happiness duality?
He, never being exposed to any type of pain (physical or mental), would remain at one extreme of the scale and never ever realize what the opposite of happiness, suffering, is.
The Buddha was kept in such a place during his youth by his father to prevent him from pursuing religion. He was supposedly kept in a beautiful palace with all worldly pleasures, surrounded by young healthy men and women.
According to legend, he only saw suffering in his 20s when he ventured out of the palace.
So, the Buddha lived in a world where one particular duality (pain-joy) didn't exist. In theory, we could do that with the other dualities and then become oblivious of the concept - a world without duality.
Well first of all, no one can be kept in isolation in a happy place. That's impossible.
People can feel pain in so many different ways. Even if you live in a paradise, your pleasure can be thwarted. Especially if you're just lazing and loafing around doing nothing productive. You feel terrible for no reason. Suffering and pain is inevitable. You cannot be shielded from it.
True satisfactory happiness can only be achieved when one does suffer. But it's a positive kind of suffering. For example, someone slaving away at a creative project and then being overwhelmed with joy when they finally complete it.
Someone could pursue lowly hedonistic pleasure their entire life like drugs, sex, or avoiding hard work. But these people still end up suffering because they're constantly trying to fill up an empty void inside of themselves through instant gratification.
Quoting TheMadFool
But I am not sure if you are talking about the actual world or the subjective human experience.
I'll share my take on the matter, and it will sort of cover both.
Duality is a construct man uses to understand his surroundings. For example, man may call things hot or cold and through his own experience be convinced they are two separate things. These phenomena both come from the same source, temperature, and are not dual in nature.
If one looks at the world, the only duality left standing is the duality between existence and non-existence (energy/matter and vacuum). However, this too begs the question that man may be unaware of the underlying phenomenon at the heart of both.
Now, can man experience this non-duality? This would mean unity, and a feeling of oneness with everything would be called by many a mystical experience. If we assume that mystical experiences or forms of enlightenment indeed make one experience oneness with everything, then the answer is yes.
This isn't a logical impossibility. It looks like a biological impossibiliy though. That said, we can remove certain dualities from our lives. A person who's never tasted alcohol doesn't know the duality of being intoxicated and not.
So, it seems as though that each one of us, having limited experience and knowledge, is in the dark about certain dualities. If so, it's not that much of an overstatement to claim a world without duality can exist.
Imagine a person with effective pain medication living in a white room that has a fixed temperature and humidity. Such a person wouldn't know what white-balck, cold-hot and dry-humid means.
Scale that situation up to include every possible perception a person could have and this person would be living in a world without duality.
There's no logical inconsitency. Perhaps it's not practically possible but that's beside the point.
Quoting Tzeentch
Oneness with everything does suggest transcending any form of separation with the other and that includes destroying the notion of duality.
That answers my question with ''duality is an illusion'' and that, quite possibly, we're one with everything.
Am I reading you correctly?
If I am then can you comment on my reply to AppLeo above.
Thanks.
What about left and right or up and down? How can someone only experience right or left, but not both?
Even if they somehow can only experience only right or only left, that doesn't mean a world, objectively speaking, can exist without dualities. Because the person's subjective view of having no dualities is subjective and not the real thing.
You draw a distinction between subjective and objective duality.
What do you mean?
However, experiencing a world without duality, in other words experiencing oneness, cannot happen in the way that you proposed. By arguing from the position of a person who is deprived of all fluctuations that could create illusions of duality, one is still assuming the existence of a person. In fact, a lot of the mental barriers one must pass through in order to experience oneness have to do with the realization that there is no 'I', that the ego is an illusion and a very unpleasant one at that.
These concepts of ego and duality are rooted deeply in our minds and it makes describing oneness very difficult. Others do a much better job at it than I. Though, ultimately it is something that needs to be experienced, not deduced, in order to comprehend it.
However, isn't mine practical and intelligible than the vague pronouncements of Buddhism or Hinduism?
Also, that means you agree that duality is a contingent property of reality. It doesn't have to be so but is.
With regards to practicality and intelligibility, what would the purpose of such qualities be? And is Buddhism really that vague? It requires a certain mindset, but with a bit of effort it can be understood. One doesn't become a doctor or a neuroscientist without putting some effort in, so why should it be different with philosophy?
Quoting TheMadFool
I'm not sure what you mean. If one's view is all is one then duality does not exist as anything other than an illusion.
That makes sense. The ego is a barrier in transcending duality because it requires self-consciousness and once that is achieved the ego immediately sees the duality of self-other and this first step may possibly be the beginning of the entire duality paradigm.
There's a topic on the forum about the ethics of eating plants if they could feel pain and my response to it was the expansion of the ego. The identification of self-ness grows from I to we the family, to the community, the nation, the world, animals and then to all life (including plants).
This is, in my opinion, what you call becoming one with everything. Yet, by my interpretation the ego isn't an illusion as you say but rather that the ego as we see it is only an early stage of it's evolution.
Did you see Guardians of the Galaxy vol 2? In it there's a living planet called, quite aptly, Ego.
Of course, in line with your view, we could consider the identification of the self with all life as ego dissolution and the initial perception of it as simply this one particular person as an illusion.
What say you?
For the most part I believe it is best to not subscribe to a certain viewpoint until one has experienced such a viewpoint to be true. Therefore I don't subscribe to the Buddhist view, even though I find it very interesting and learn a lot from it. A viewpoint I find just as interesting is the Hermetic point of view, which asserts that human existence is part of a larger existence, and it seems to connect to your view.
On the topic of ego; it is a bit of a tricky subject. Very clearly there is an observer. How else could we be observing and thinking? In general, I think the ego refers to specifically the identification of the observer with its worldly, material form and desires. So while ego dissolution is the letting go of one's worldly identity, I don't think it necessarily means letting go of being. The state of being is in many such disciplines one of the highest attainable by man. Perhaps this eventually will be released as well?
Good for you, I guess? I don't know what your point is.
Please explain how I have an inner voice of a fascist.
This sounds like a “only the strong will survive and prosper” or “only the strong achieve happiness” voice as opposed to a “the gentle will inherit the earth” type voice. But I could be wrong about you. That’s just the impression I got.
You can focus on one side of magnet but it doesn't actually eliminate the natural polarity of the magnet.
A one-sided, non-polar, view or being could be had in actuality, in the world, or only potentially as in More's Utopian work and those like it.
To expect such things as "Being Happy all the time" isn't realistic in this world. Our world is naturally polar when it comes to emotions.
In medicine there's this concept - quality of life. We could rephrase it as quality of being.
Is being, just that, the highest attainment of man? Does this state of being not need some auxiliaries? The answer, it seems, is yes. Just being isn't enough. Isn't philosophy about the search for these extra qualities that make being worth it?
Noentheless, quite ironically, to be one with everything entails discovering a quality we share with everything and that is just being.
So, it seems, the ego, driven to search for more than just being eventually must come to realize that it is just being that is the destination of its journey.
A full circle.
By world I mean a logically possible world - exclusion of a contradiction.
As I've written in the OP and other posts, there's no logical contradiction in a world sans a duality paradigm. In fact even in this world some people live without experiencing duality either for some time or never at all. A person lucky enough not to get sick till 20 never experiences the duality of ill-well till then.
Also, if we look at the way we plan our lives - seekimg happiness - we're trying to escape the duality of pain-joy. Utopia and heaven are two such goals for humans. Once, if, they're achieved we would've transcended duality in physical terms.
I say ''physical terms'' because there's a psychological method of escaping duality i.e. by recognizing the unity is just plain simple being Tzeentch referred to.
Quoting Josh Alfred
Can you name some. Thanks.
One can use reason to determine the conditions under which reason works, but one cannot use reason to say what reason is.
(Yeah, well, that’s all well and good, buddy, but how can the concept of “duality”....if it’s a name it must have been a concept first, right?....have any meaning, any explanatory power, if, in a relational system, it doesn’t relate to anything? Huh? Now what?)
Dunno. To devolve into endless regress in order to find a monism, or to generate one in order to prevent it....one’s as minimally satisfactory and as maximally necessary as the other.