Originally posted by twhiteheadGenerically, dualism refers to some thesis that, within some particular domain of discourse, there exist two fundamental but disparate kinds or categories. If you intend to focus this discussion to "dualism" indexed specifically to the particular domain of abstracta vs. concreta, that is fine. But that is not typically how the term is taken in the philosophy of mind, where it relates to the physical vs mental distinction (which is not quite the same as the physical/abstract distinction you outlined). I would think the thesis you put forth here (that there exist abstracta in addition to concreta) is maybe better viewed as a denial of some version of metaphysical nominalism, rather than as a generic statement of dualism. All of these articles would be relevant:
So here goes my understanding of the concept:
Abstract concepts like numbers, most of mathematics, words, stories etc can be considered both existent and independent of the materials with which they are represented. Thus there are two types of existence: physical existence and abstract existence.
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/nominalism-metaphysics/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/dualism/
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/abstract-objects/
04 Jun 15
Originally posted by twhiteheadOK, so maybe I am not using the word "dualism" in the Platonic, philosophical context, and that is why I have not joined in this discussion earlier.
But again, I think the term to use for this is 'dichotomy' and not 'dualism'.
I also think that your attempts to remain neutral often go to far and you should actually take a stand on some issues.
I use it in the sense that Richard Rohr uses it in his book: "Yes, and...." as well as on his CAC website. In the religious press this word is lately used also by others more often in the way that I have done it. But I readily agree that there are other meanings and definitions of the word.
My point was actually to discuss a CONCEPT, and one could discuss it as long as both agree what is meant, no matter what it is called.
Actually, I don't mind taking a stand on issues that I feel strongly about, and have done so on this platform. Specifically, matters of principle. But on matters of personal belief, and opinions, I give people lots of scope and freedom.
Again, I do not necessarilly remain neutral on them, in the sense that I myself may have a personal opinion on an issue, but I will not force that opinion on others and will only respond if I am asked to defend such an opinion or belief - as I have done on occasion here.
04 Jun 15
Originally posted by CalJustI don't think anyone except dasa believes in forcing belief on others - and even he prefers to just kill them instead.
Again, I do not necessarilly remain neutral on them, in the sense that I myself may have a personal opinion on an issue, but I will not force that opinion on others and will only respond if I am asked to defend such an opinion or belief - as I have done on occasion here.
I am still not certain what your stand is however. You seem to be saying two different things and never settling on one or the other:
1. Different people holding different beliefs may both be right / may both be partially right / may both have good aspects to their beliefs. This is the "Yes and..." stance.
2.Different people holding different beliefs are simply not in a position to question each others beliefs and thus should remain silent - even if they are convinced that the other guy is wrong.
04 Jun 15
2 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadThese two statements are not different, nor are they alternative points of view.
1. Different people holding different beliefs may both be right / may both be partially right / may bo beliefs and thus should remain silent - even if they are convinced that the other guy is wrong.
Because of the fact of 1, 2 should be practiced.
05 Jun 15
2 edits
Originally posted by twhitehead
1. Different people holding different beliefs may both be right / may both be partially right / may both have good aspects to their beliefs. This is the "Yes and..." stance.
2.Different people holding different beliefs are simply not in a position to question each others beliefs and thus should remain silent - even if they are convinced that the other guy is wrong.
I am intrigued by your comment that these statements are different, and would like to pursue the matter just a little further. I might be missing something that could explain our frequent misunderstandings.
Statement 1 says that our beliefs are largely subjective, based on personal experiences and interpretations of, let's call it, holy writings. So basically, let's cut each other some slack because the TRUTH may be bigger than both of us.
Statement 2 says exactly the same thing in other words. EVEN IF you think that the truth YOU hold is really, really true, you should remember that you yourself know that there was a time when you DID NOT, yourself, hold that pov to be true which you do now. So let's accept that most of us are still pilgrims on the road looking for TRUTH.
How, exactly, are these two statements that you posed different, in your opinion? What am I missing? Is it merely the vagaries of grammar or something deeper?
Originally posted by CalJustNo, 1. says nothing about subjective truth or belief nor cutting each other slack. 1. says that people may hold a vast collection of beliefs some of which may be right and some may be wrong, and some beliefs may have benefits despite being wrong, etc.
I am intrigued by your comment that these statements are different, and would like to pursue the matter just a little further. I might be missing something that could explain our frequent misunderstandings.
Statement 1 says that our beliefs are largely subjective, based on personal experiences and interpretations of, let's call it, holy writings. So basically, let's cut each other some slack because the TRUTH may be bigger than both of us.
Think of two political parties. Each party will have a vast range of policies and they may even overlap with each other. So it is impossible to simply say 'that party is wrong'. Similarly they may have different economic policies, but each economic policy will have pros and cons, and again, you cannot simply say 'that economic policy is wrong'. You can say 'Yes, that economic policy is good but...'. Or 'that economic policy is bad, but may have some good aspects'. etc.
That is all very different from no 2. which is basically saying 'although I believe this, I will not challenge anyone else who believes differently because I am not confident that I am right, or I don't want to offend anyone'.
05 Jun 15
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadIn this latest post you introduce politics, which is essentially an OPINION, although maybe strongly held. This is very different from a RELIGIOUS BELIEF.
No, 1. says nothing about subjective truth or belief nor cutting each other slack. 1. says that people may hold a vast collection of beliefs some of which may be right and some may be wrong, and some beliefs may have benefits despite being wrong, etc.
Think of two political parties. Each party will have a vast range of policies and they may even overlap ...[text shortened]... ieves differently because I am not confident that I am right, or I don't want to offend anyone'.
In your original post you very clearly use the words " Different people holding different beliefs... in both cases. Being the SF, one may be forgiven for thinking that you are referring to Spiritual beliefs, and not political views.
So IMHO your latest contention that these are different statements does not hold water.
But, as I said before, it is intriguing to me to realise that in very simple matters such as this, i.e. the interpretation of grammar and language, we cannot see eye to eye. How could we possible agree in spiritual matters?
Btw, is there any "independent observer" out there who could theow some light on this discussion? Not the entire one, of course, merely the latest few exchanges after twhitehead threw down the challenge to me to explain my dichotomy.
FMF, BDP, where are you when we need you?
05 Jun 15
Originally posted by CalJustYes, I was mostly referring to spiritual beliefs, although any beliefs will do.
In this latest post you introduce politics, which is essentially an OPINION, although maybe strongly held. This is very different from a RELIGIOUS BELIEF.
In your original post you very clearly use the words " Different people holding different beliefs... in both cases. Being the SF, one may be forgiven for thinking that you are referring to Spiritual beliefs, and not political views.
So IMHO your latest contention that these are different statements does not hold water.
What? Because I used politics as an analogy to explain what I meant therefore my contention doesn't hold water? You are not making any sense.
But, as I said before, it is intriguing to me to realise that in very simple matters such as this, i.e. the interpretation of grammar and language, we cannot see eye to eye. How could we possible agree in spiritual matters?
I don't think we should expect to agree on spiritual matters, after all, I am an atheist and you are a theist. But it appears from the way the conversation is going that you are not just intent on not agreeing, but you would rather we do not understand each other either - something that should not be impossible, nor even that difficult.
I do get the feeling that for you 'spiritual matters' is some special category with special rules (that are not all that clear). What do you mean when you say 'spiritual matters'?
Do you believe spiritual matters are by their very nature impervious to science or logic or evidence? If so, why?
06 Jun 15
3 edits
Originally posted by twhiteheadI am still not certain what your stand is however. You seem to be saying two different things and never settling on one or the other:
1. Different people holding different beliefs may both be right / may both be partially right / may both have good aspects to their beliefs. This is the "Yes and..." stance.
2.Different people holding different beliefs are simply not in a position to question each others beliefs and thus should remain silent - even if they are convinced that the other guy is wrong.
Before you change the subject, I really would like to pursue this problem a little further. You accused me here of at best being unclear, and at worst confused and illogical, maybe even deceptive.
I pointed out that this is an unfair accusation, because, in my opinion, both these statements actually describe the same position.
You then disagreed, saying that a political opinion or persuasion may be partly right and partly wrong.
I responded that we are talking about spiritual, or religious views, and then in your latest response you say basically: "so what's the difference? Shouldn't spiritual views have a basis in logic and reason?" Of course, I agree.
But:
FIRSTLY, I would like you to withdraw your accusation that I am muddle-minded and don't know what I trying to say, because I have shown that the two alternatives that you posed are actually one and the same.
SECONDLY, you have again demonstrated the different ways that BELIEF (your words) are used on this forum. The one way is formal religious faith, i.e. belief in a god or gods and a religious dogma, (which is the way I have used it here, and thought that you did too), and the other is simply an opinion, or preference, or thought pattern, e.g. "I believe the Republicans have a better policy than the Democrats" or "I believe that the Toyota is better than the Ford". You are clearly confusing these two ways of using the word "belief" and "believe".
THIRDLY: To come back to your original accusation, do you think (believe?!) that either or both of the two statements that you present are a valid mental position to hold or not? If one or both of them are wrong, why do you think so?
I would recommend that contributors to this forum (including especially you) seriously consider the validity of both if these positions, (if they are, indeed, two and not one and the same,) because that is what I understand the word non-dualism to mean.
06 Jun 15
Originally posted by CalJustNon-dualism is the knowledge that the opposites, as grasped from the dualistic point of view, are experienced strictly in relation to each other. In fact there are no inherently existent opposites; existent are strictly the relationships –each single one element of each pair of the so called opposites, does not exist in perfect absence of the other;
[b]I am still not certain what your stand is however. You seem to be saying two different things and never settling on one or the other:
1. Different people holding different beliefs may both be right / may both be partially right / may both have good aspects to their beliefs. This is the "Yes and..." stance.
2.Different people holding different beliefs ...[text shortened]... nd not one and the same,) because that is what I understand the word non-dualism to mean.
Non-dualism must not be understood as an approach that eliminates every kind of differences; the differences we perceive are existent in the so called opposites (ie Body and Mind), however the body and the mind are not separated –in fact we do not have a Body and a Mind, we have a BodyMind in oneness: the duality “Body and Mind” (as well as the multiple objects we see in the world), are strictly transformations and in no way concrete and permanent forms that exist out there inherently in full separation of every other form.
At a higher non-dual level, awareness is undivided –the approach is not “I see this cat, and this cat is an object I see”. The approach is pure seeing; when from the action of seeing remains solely the seeing, the consciousness that experiences pure seeing and the object it sees (it displays, that is) are not-two
😵
06 Jun 15
Hi BB,
Thanks for this elucidation.
I explained earlier in this thread that I do understand that there is a technical sense in which this word has this philosophical, Platonic, meaning.
However, I merely used it in the sense of seeing things in Black and White, and mutually exclusive opposites. I fully understand that that is NOT the way the word is used by professional philosophers and experts in their art.
So, as long as we know WHAT we are talking about, we could just as well have used another word, such as dichotomy, which twhitehead suggested.
The main point of my entire contribution to this thread has merely been to point out that it would not hurt if we, in a spiritual discussion, cut the other guy some slack, because he/she certainly may have good reasons for believing whatever it is he/she does.
06 Jun 15
Originally posted by CalJustYou have not convinced me they are the same, and instead of trying to convince me, you used what I can only describe as very poor logic to try and make your case. You said that because I used politics as an analogy whereas you were referring to spiritual beliefs, therefore my explanation is invalid. It just seemed like the sort of thing Robbie would say when he knows he's wrong but isn't man enough to admit it.
FIRSTLY, I would like you to withdraw your accusation that I am muddle-minded and don't know what I trying to say, because I have shown that the two alternatives that you posed are actually one and the same.
SECONDLY, you have again demonstrated the different ways that BELIEF (your words) are used on this forum. The one way is formal religious faith, i.e. belief in a god or gods and a religious dogma, (which is the way I have used it here, and thought that you did too), and the other is simply an opinion, or preference, or thought pattern, e.g. "I believe the Republicans have a better policy than the Democrats" or "I believe that the Toyota is better than the Ford". You are clearly confusing these two ways of using the word "belief" and "believe".
I disagree that the uses are as different as you suggest. In addition, I did not say anything about belief in policies. I was referring to the way a political party may have many policies, some of which are correct, and some of which may be right but not the only right. The issue in my analogy has nothing to do with whether anyone believes in a political parties policies.
But while were are there, what do you think is different between a religious belief and a belief that a given party policy is the best one?
THIRDLY: To come back to your original accusation, do you think (believe?!) that either or both of the two statements that you present are a valid mental position to hold or not? If one or both of them are wrong, why do you think so?
I think they are both valid in certain circumstances. I think you go too far in applying them. Even when it is obvious that two religions are totally incompatible with each other, you sit back and say 'well they could both be right'. I say that is not a valid position to hold.