Dualistic thinking Options

Dualistic thinking is very relevant to people following spiritual paths of any kind, since it involves believers who claim to see and experience another existence and others who having not experienced anything they would describe as other-worldy, disregard these claims and it therefore divides people into two camps.

The language used is also a form of dualism as it separates entities into good and bad and places into discrete areas thus: Heaven and Hell.

Is dualistic thinking useful and a good way of hanging ideas on hooks for further exploration or does it lead to extremes of thought that lack balance and settle people into positions that are hard to find their way out of?

I strongly disagree with this point of view. Dualistic thinking is what causes boxed and limiting ways of thought. This type of thinking is what mundane people do, not people who try to walk on the path of spirituality or magick. In another topic I shared my views on this matter very briefly, but I shall try to go more indepth here.

When a soul reincarnates it will arive as a small humanoid, a baby. This being is still "pure" as in clean of limitations created by man itself. A baby only has a soul "ego" and interacts instinctively and intuitionaly with the surroundings. Baby's and young children can often see entities and energies. How often does a child talk about an imaginative being while it is more then just an imagination?

As the child grows in age it will adept to their social surroundings. They will interact with others such as their parents, friends, tutors at school, people on the streets and later on the media and such. The child will take over personalities traits and ways of thinking from others. It'll be told what is real and what is not, possible it'll be forced a religion upon it as well and be told what is generally accepted as right or wrong. The child will grow up with limitations and gets more and more out of touch with what is truly real.

It is different to know who you really are and what you think is truly your own. How often does it happen that when you spend a lot of time with someone that you will take over certain personality traits without even knowing? How often does it occur that you think that something is bad, because the majority of society tells you? These are limitations which you allowed to take control of you. A bubble in which you live and disconnects you from the universe and the energies that it is made up from.

Puberty is a stage in which a child starts to think more and more for itself and "rebels" against authorities. This is natural behaviour and not something that happened since the coming of the so called "Indigo Children". During this period the child is able to get rid of certain limitations and take more control of itself. However a lot of doctrine stays with the child throughout its entire life. People who walk on the path of enlightentment will notice this and start to get rid more and more of it all and only allow the personality traits and such with which they feel happy and comfortable. Still it is not an easy task.

The doctrine, the personality traits, the emotions, the experiences of an individual is what allows people to form an opinion. This is where dualistic thinking enters. Dualistic thinking is what allows people to make a distinction between things and catagorize it for easier understanding. Along of it the will add a subjective opinion to the matter. The minute you will give an opinion you're automatically judging it by your own standards. You can't catogorize it in your mind before you judged it.

Let's talk about something basic such as the everlasting concept of "good versus evil". This concept is a man made idea, not a universal idea. People should look at things as they are without casting a judgement about it. Why do we have to judge everything? Primarily it is to protect oneself. You see something and will judge it and call it good or bad and then catogarize it as a threat or not. However you keep judging events by the the standards of previous experiences of a similiar event. So basically because something harmed you in any way, once or twice, you accepted it to happen every time a similar event occurs? You have any idea how many wonderfull experiences you've missed because of that? Do you also understand the Law of Attraction which states that you attract the energies that you emit yourself? Basically you're affraid to be harmed, thus you will be harmed. However if you don't judge and take an experience as if it is a new one with an open mind and heart you will gain wonderfull experiences each and every day. Because you're not wasting energy on being subconciously affraid, worried, cautious you will have a lot of energy left to attract the opposite emotions into your life. This is magick as well, without having to perform a ritual. Something this basic which can be done each and every day in your daily life. You need to become aware and concious of what you're actually doing, which is also the hard part of it all. Not a change you can make over night.

Good and evil is therefore in the eye of the beholder. On an individual scale we all judge every event on a subconcious level. However every individual measures with different standards so what one individual judges as Evil/Bad for him the next person might classify as Good/helpfull. Everything is energy ranging from plants to people, from thoughts to active expressions/action and many entities/gods etc. We're all made up from energy and as we all know...energy is open to interpetation. Entities are genderless and contain no real morals. You interpetate the energy that you work with and classify it by using your emotions/intuition as how you feel about the energy that you work with. One person might experience a certain entity as an Angelic being while another person might experience the same being as Daemonic. In the end...does it matter how you classify a being and in what box you put it in? Not one bit, what matters is how that being makes you feel and what use it is to you.

The same for more real life events. Emotions rise up between two people and suddenly one of them has had enough. In his mind he will form a thought, a reason, which justifies the action which he is about to perform. He lashes out and beats the other man down. In his mind this action was "good" and justified for whatever reason. The other individual is hurt and bleeding and considers the same act as "bad" . He can't find a reason to justify that action and being the victem in this case doesn't really make him think there might be a "good" aspect to this. Any follow up events are not important such as the fight it might lead to or the possible break up of friendship. Those are not important since they are best seen as stand-alone events due to the new thoughts formed which make you decide the next course of action to take.

A more clear excample would be terrorism. The terrorists are right in their eyes, but in the eyes of people who can't understand them it is seen as acts of evil. Terrorism is an extreme form of rebellion. Rebellion takes shape when people are unhappy the way they are treated, such as being opressed for decennia.

On a more social scale there are a lot of generally "accepted" ways of judging which tells everyone what is right or wrong. Who are they to decide what is right or wrong for everyone? The law is such an excample. Just because a large amount of society decided on what is right, doesn't actually make it right. These are just restrictions forced upon one another, because society itself is irresponsible. Most people are still young in soul and thus childish. You give them a finger and they take your entire arm and always blame other people or entities. Moderation of earthly resources and being conciously aware of the effects your thoughts and actions have is something most people seem to lack. Which truly is a shame...

People are stuck in a certain way of thinking, which is distributed from generation to generation. Stagnant thinking, we are made up of 70% of water...what happens when water gets stagnant? What happens if energy gets stagnant and no longer is active/moving? It grows weaker untill it eventually dies.

There is only one correct way. Trust your own emotions and intuition. If something makes you feel uneasy or negative then don't associate yourself with the event or individual. If you feel positive about something then it is something you should do and be with. Don't follow man made laws and concepts. I don't...the world authorities can kiss my arse. I do as I please and take full responsibility of my thoughts and the actions that will follow from them. Man can not judge me, they have no right. The proper, higher, authorities will intervene when needed to.

Hmmm...it feels this is more of a rant then anything else. Not my intention. Hopfefully it still got the point across which I was trying to make.

This post has been edited by Sabazel: Dec 21 2005, 12:39 PM

Good and evil is therefore in the eye of the beholder.

And for those of us living in the real world rather than the philosophy textbook it is quite obvious that good and evil do exist. Or is good and evil just for mundane people? I think we know where that particular philosophy ends up, concentration camps and gas chambers.

It is a shame that morality is looked down upon by the arrogant liberal/intelectual elite. It is because people fought against evil and for good that we enjoy the rights and freedoms we have today. People decided that slavery was evil, people decided that denying equal rights to women was evil, people decided that nazism was evil... this is not some intellectual game.

Good and Evil are all around us. It is obvious to those with eyes to see. As our libertarian western first world coutries sleep walk towards fascism yet again let us hope that some people put aside their copy of Nietzsche.

i do not agree mediocracy.

The things you refer to are things that are immoral according to the way majority sees it.

Dualistic thinking does not promote balance.

Good and evil are mental constructs, they exist only within our mind. they are labels we place upon something, and it is only ourselves that place the labels.

dictionairy on evil: morally objectionable behavior
dictionairy on morality: motivation based on ideas of right and wrong

Morality is based on ideas, ideas are personal and not real.

There are still thousands of nea nazi's out there, these people believe it is morally right to kill someone from another race. they think they are doing good things.

Many people do good things other people percieve as evil, and vice versa. A parent can do something with all the good intents and still anger a child.

Moral laws are for the most part personal laws, they are shared by large groups of people, but no 2 people have the exact same set of moral laws. So even morality is no constant.

the only thing what is real, is the human law. these laws are voted on and agreed by more than one person, thats why they should form a rather good view on the morality the majority of a nations inhabitants live by.
Even they are not morraly correct for everyone. Some think drugs like weed should be illegal, others think the opposite.

My mother thinks smoking weed is evil, i do smoke weed, then i must be evil, or perhaps my mother is evil for thinking smoking weed is evil.
The truth is we are both good and evil at the same time, depending on who you ask the question. We are what they call grey.

Many peoples opinions differ, good and evil are not constants, they are dependant on the eye of the beholder, not on an objective truth.

You are just voicing your own opinion of whats good on the world on this matter.
You say : It is a shame that morality is looked down upon by the arrogant liberal/intelectual elite.

However, that does not mean that what you say is good, that it is true. It is your perception, your morality. And by giving it you are proving exactly that there is no such thing as good and evil, becouse my defenition of whats good is at least different from yours on that one point.

If you start to believe in a set defenition of good and evil, your ways will grow hard and rigid, unable to change your perception you will be forced to behold the world with those set views. if good ond evil are fixed rules, then these rules cannot change.

Hitler was not flexible, thought that good was a fixed thing. And according to him killing jews was part of that. You say he was evil. I say he did not conform to our moral standards, that his view of what was good was different from ours. He thought he was doing good for the entire world, that he was a saint to do so.

How can you be certain that in your big bag of morality, some rules are not flawed, perhaps some of them do not conform to the majoritys rules?

two things are important.
1. have a healty set of moral laws.
2. be aware that they may be wrong, but use them anyway.

In the end only karma decides whats good and evil, it has the last word, you can say what you want, karma does not care about moral laws.

Is it 'good' to kill cows for meat?
why not eat dogs or cats, or dolphins, becouse they look prettier perhaps?
should we use fossil fuels at all, is everyone driving such a vehicle evil? perhaps we should not heal when we get ill, isn't it morraly incorect towards the virus to kill it of, does it not want to live?
should my computer even be on, am i not using a polluting power source?
aren't computer screens evil, they are bad for my eyes?
is candy evil, it is bad for your health?
is water evil, it can drown you?
is a dog that bites you evil?
is a mosquito evil?
is a crocodile evil?

I also disagree with Mediocracy in part.

For instance (as an extension of Fox's example), did Hitler think that what he did was wrong? Did he think it was evil?
Quite the opposite in fact - he saw NOT doing what he did as evil.

I've heard someone describe the Australian Prime Minister as "one of the good guys", yet this is the same Prime Minister who is implementing Stalin-esque "anti-terror" policies (it's actually now illegal for me to say anything against him, our laws are that draconian - oops, I just broke the law), and is such a bastard (that's twice now) with international dealings that instead of letting Indonesia have half of the waters between us and them as their territory, instead made it so that Australian waters go right out to the edge of the continental shelf (about 3/4 of the way to Indonesia).

When dealing with humans, I can neither ascribe good nor evil to their actions, because I cannot claim to hold universal morality (although I have been suspecting for quite some time that there may be one), although I can state that according to my own moral code - which is somewhat utilitarian in nature - someone's actions are wrong. However, when dealing with spiritual entities, I have a bit of an easier time.

I've found that they tend (note - tend) to ascribe themselves an either "light" or "dark" position. That gives me one way of handling them - this isn't necessarily "good" or "evil", since the largest dark entity I've encountered is utterly neutral, but it's a start. Generally there is some reason why they attach themselves to one or the other, which gives some sort of character insight.

Back to the original question - dualism can be very useful, since often the dichotomy arises from the being you are dealing with's own way of thinking. It can also be a hindrance. Then again, I guess it all depends on the topic of conversation - I would have trouble arguing against a "living/dead" dichotomy in the objective sense.

We need to come to some understanding of what we view as Dualistic thinking. It appears we are rely on the idea of Western Theistic Dualism where opposites are seen as antagonistic for criticism of Dualistic thinking.

Those that are opposed are merely relying on a Eastern view that the opposites are complimentary and of a greater whole while at the time ignoring Objective reality.

This does not create a reality where Dualistic thinking is eliminated. In the case where Dualism is purported to have been conquered it has not been transcended as the idea of "I" is still fully contained within the equation.

Those opposed to Dualism have repeatedly stated the ways to look at both sides of a situation yet they are choosing not to attempt to UNITE the Objective World with their Subjective world they are SEPERATING them.

Kant teaches us that the Objective world of Object and our Subjective world are two distinct Ontological ideas which are concomitant. As such they cannot be relied on to look at "Objective Reality" in it's truest sense.

The problem with the posts I see talking about not engaging in Dualistic thinking is that they have eliminated any ideas of Objective Truth because they feel it cannot be reconciled so they have taken the stand that therefore they should ignore it or not attempt to reconcile it with their own Subjective views.

This is NOT an escape from Dualistic thinking it is actually Western Dualistic thinking in it's truest sense. "I" is not removed from the equation it becomes the only part of being that is focused on.

If we choose to only focus on the "I" part of the equation we have not left Dualistic thinking we rather chose to descend into the ego-stoking realms of SOLIPSISM.

If we wish to escape dualistic thinking (if this is even necessary) we need to look to unite our Subjective selves with Objective truth, we need not divide them into completely separate ideas we need to use the

Alchemical Secret:---
Solve et Coagula

This post has been edited by chaoscrowley37: Dec 22 2005, 12:14 AM

Interesting discussion is forming here.

@medicricy
For a moderator, of a website, with the kind of information promoted on the main pages I find you rather closed. I find your attitude "negative". This is an opinion of mine, I'm sure your friends will find you a nice person. Dualistic thinking in the way that I describe is VERY much used in daily life.

Saying it is fake textbook philosophy and doesn't excist to people who live in the "real world" is an attitude which is associated with the "liberal/elite". Do you even notice the things that you are saying? That you are actually judging people by your standard? Calling me, and everyone who thinks similar, arrogant/elite. It's like blaming the kettle black (if I remembered the correct english phrase).

You make it sound as if I look down on mundane people. Sorry, but I do not. Everone is in a daily learning proces and some are further, faster students then others. Does this also make people better then others? I don't think so.

People didn't fight against good or evil, people rebelled against ideas and concepts which they disagreed with. They disagreed and wanted a change. If there are enough people who want the same change and work together you will see that a lot can be achieved. Look at the flower power hippies who rebelled against governments. Personally I'm not so sure this was a good thing, seeing that most people were/aren't ready to cope with the responsibilities that all that freedom brought. A slower introduction would've been better in my eyes. An opinion by my own standards.

Who are you to judge that fascism is a bad thing? It doesn't agree with your view, but in certain countries it is needed to cause change. People decide for themselves and find this change good and see fascism as THE way to do so. It's a tendence which happens often, in some countries more extreme then others. Fascism isn't my way to go either, but it is just the way it is. It is not good or bad...it just is. It doesn't have to do with dualistic thinking being plausible in "the real world" it just is without your objective view added to it in order to judge. Fascism might not be the real solution on short term, but it will cause people to see things different in a new light. You can read all you want, but you can't truly understand unless you lived it.

I remember the bible stating: "Don't judge unless you want to be judged yourself"

People often come with nazi's, Hitler and World War 2. The people that do so are usually children that know very little about the many aspects and the deeper layers of understanding the situations. Making comparisons with regular topics and make an automatic connection towards Hitler just shows how little people truly know about a certain object. Does this make a person evil or bad? Do I feel better for understanding more then most people do? No, it just is the way it is. It's not good nor bad, it just is.

This post has been edited by Sabazel: Dec 22 2005, 02:12 AM

I find your attitude "negative".

No, it just is the way it is. It's not good nor bad, it just is.

This is where I think your reasoning becomes flawed. You fall into the trap of dualistic thought when denouncing dualistic thought. You form a logical paradox.

We need to use dualistic thought to form a coherent whole. We can not simply toss it out the window.

When we do this we are taking the course of a scientist who uses the scientific method to demonstrate that the Scientific Method is invalid.

This creates the paradox that he is simultaneously validating and invalidating the Method he is using.

Your posts are littered with dualistic thought while simultaneously saying you do not practice it.

This post has been edited by chaoscrowley37: Dec 22 2005, 02:18 AM

Your posts are littered with dualistic thought while simultaneously saying you do not practice it.

Actually, you're falling for a fallacy of equivocation.

When he refers to "dualistic thought", he is not refering to each and every dichotomy - he's referring to the good/evil dichotomy.

Therefore, he falls into no fallacy when he uses a negative/positive dichotomy, since it's an entirely different balance to the good/evil dichotomy that he disowns. Instead, you are equivocating based on his imprecise terms.

Your posts are littered with dualistic thought while simultaneously saying you do not practice it.

Actually, you're falling for a fallacy of equivocation.

When he refers to "dualistic thought", he is not refering to each and every dichotomy - he's referring to the good/evil dichotomy.

I will have to see if that is indeed what it is but I could have sworn that this thread was entitled DUALISTIC THINKING rather than GOOD vs. EVIL.

If so, thanks for the tip Zahaqiel. (IMG:style_emoticons/default/laugh.gif)
I'll know that from now on Topic titles don't have anything to do with the Topic itself.

This post has been edited by chaoscrowley37: Dec 22 2005, 02:44 AM

I'll make it simple to know what we are discussing...
Sabazel are you saying that Dualistic Thinking as a whole is something you don't practice or the Classification of Good vs. Evil? Is it only this or Dualist thought as a whole?

I am sure ut is fun to debate and counter-debate these topics. Personally I am not very interested in this level of philisophical debate. Eastern vs Western thought... look where Zen ended up, with the samurai hacking passing peasants to death just to test a blade. Look where Nietzsche got us, gas chambers.

If you want to sit around and deny that good and evil exist then so be it. If I sound negative then so be it. This is just so much mental masturbation at the end of the day, and that is pretty much what the internet now exists for.

@medicricy
For a moderator, of a website, with the kind of information promoted on the main pages I find you rather closed.

Have I Moderated your posts in any way, shape or form in this thread?
Have I used my Moderator status to push the thread in any direction?
Have I deleted any posts in this thread?

No, No and NO. So wtf does my moderator status have to do with anything? Nothing. Unless you think that a Moderator has no right to debate in threads on these forums.

Med - he's more saying that you have an integral part of the website's functioning, yet seem to diverge from its overall philosophies.

ChaosCrowley - if you look at what Sabazel's reacting to, his post was primarily caused by Mediocracy's post stating the good and evil exist. So it's not that the topic titles and the topic are different, rather that the topic title and the way the arguments develop can seperate.

I'm not trying to be spiteful, I am honestly trying to determine what was being discussed here. The posts shot off in multiple directions. If the topic was Good vs. Evil my comments would have been different from Dualistic Thinking. I think a problem developed because this thread immediately continued the conversation occuring on the Lucifer thread rather focusing on a new idea.

Sebazels first post dealt with Good vs. Evil in length but the topic was Dualistic Thinking so my last post was an attempt to determine if we are only speaking about Good vs. Evil or Dualistic Thinking as a whole with him using Good vs. Evil as an example of it.

I apologize if I was being a jerk.

My apologies to Mediocracy. I was not attacking you in anyway. What I was doing was creating real life excamples. You took my words in a specific way and judged them, catagorized them. You felt attacked while in fact this was not my intent. This is how confrontations between people start, even large scale wars, while in fact they could've been avoided.

This topic is indeed about Dualistic Thinking and that covers a large variety of things to discuss, basically anything which is opposit of one another. The reason I took the "good vs evil" route was because it was already partially initiated in another topic. Also because this is the direction which is most obvious to people. An everlasting topic which you also see in movies just as well as in real life interactions between people.

To the question if I practice dualistic thinking...well who doesn't one way or another? Yet I'm trying to understand and learn to stop it within myself. Seeing this is not an overnight thing to change it takes time. It means altering the current way of thinking. The first step is being conciously aware of what you're doing and then slowly alter it to what you want. Seeing things for what they are, without judgement, allows you to initiate change. So yes I am capable of using certain aspects of non-dualistic thinking in my favor. I get better and better at it as well.

There are always opposites such as Yin and Yang, Small and big, Day and Night, man and woman...finding the common ground of everything is when you can start to see things for what they are. The dualistic thoughts and boxed thinking will deminish in due time once you gained that type of understanding of the teaching. Whether you try to follow the teaching is up to the individual themselves. Saying that you follow a certain path doesn't automatically mean you've complete understanding or power over it. That will grow in due time.

I've said my piece about good vs evil and am interested about taking this topic in other directions of Dualistic thinking. So take it off and see where it ends shall we (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

I am sure ut is fun to debate and counter-debate these topics. Personally I am not very interested in this level of philisophical debate. Eastern vs Western thought... look where Zen ended up, with the samurai hacking passing peasants to death just to test a blade. Look where Nietzsche got us, gas chambers.

If you want to sit around and deny that good and evil exist then so be it. If I sound negative then so be it. This is just so much mental masturbation at the end of the day, and that is pretty much what the internet now exists for.

The teachings are flawless in most cases. However people interpetate them differently and act according to their own view on that teaching. People don't seem to be able to cope with a certain amount of responsibility and hide behind the teachings and their own interpetations of it.

Take the bible for excample. How many wars weren't started because of the many interpetations possible? Same for the qo'ran.

In todays society when something is offered for free people will take it. No matter what it is and if they need it. They take it because it is free. Greed and lack of respect to others. I would not take it i'f I don't need it. If I did need it I would give something in return to the provider, no matter how insignificant it may seem to outsiders. But this is more worthy in a debate about "comunities" and such.

Thank you Sabazel, this topic has moved on apace since I retired for the night and I was just about to clarify, but you have done this beautifully for me. Thank you.

Yes chaoscrowley37, this thread was started as the Lucifer topic was going off-topic.

Reading through, I can see that this might be a good point to clarify my question for one or two of you.

I am asking about ways of thinking.

I am not asking if something is good or bad per se, but rather how far is it useful?

It is clearly helpful to have metaphors and words that describe an area of thought or a collective group of related things, but when does this grouping no longer help, when does it start to form divisions and turn out to be something that traps the mind rather than adds to existing knowledge?

How easy is it to change your point of view once you have become entrenched in one set of beliefs with all of the associated language it uses.

I will not mind if this topic moves away from my original question quite naturally into something else as long as it is about dualistic thinking in a recognizable form.

Lastly, lets be careful about how we address other members views.

changing ones point of view is almost impossible. The moral laws we use to measure life and actions by ARE our good and evil. They are different for many people, but they still are true.

Every single person measures life by his own moral code. There is no way to bypass that. It wil always be so, the code could change, but the measuring remanis.

wisdom, can be said to be the quality of possesing a moral code that agrees with the majority. that the majority of people consider your actions to be moraly wise. Like a character like gandalf from a movie appears to be wise, becouse his moral actions agree to yours and many peoples moral code.

but, In the end, mediocracy has a good point, all this is mental mastrubation.

We view life trough our senses, thus we get an image interpreted by the senses and view this image as the truth, as reality. However, what we percieve as reality may not be reality at all, our senses have their flaws and limits, they can be tricked.
Since the normal man has no other way to percieve the world, the only option is to view this perception as the one and only true reality.
Morality can be seen as an extra sense, since we measure our interpreted and already limited view of the world against a set of moral codes that may be incorrect. What we end up with is a double lie. However, since this view is our only possible view, and since we are lacking any other tools to measure things by, we can only assume and hope our measuring was correct.
In the end our personal reality becomes detached from the true world, it is experienced internally. And in our own mind these moral codes are all about truth, they ARE our true flawed reality. The only one we can live.

A mage or wizard should try to measure life with other senses. He should seek new and higher truths. In that way he should be prepared to release his moral codes. He should not become attached to them, becouse if he clings to them he will only bring suffering upon himself.

So yes, for the laymen, all this is mental mastrubation, but for the mage or wizard this is useful and true information that should be considered.

It is useful becouse life would be impossible without it. Without a moral code you cannot do anything, becouse you cannot make complex choises, you cannot decide on anything.

In order to change your system of judgement you must first understand what it is made up of. What makes up your belief system, your personality, your moral. This is something which I mentioned in a previous post.

Most people take over other peoples, or generally accepted, ideals and personality traits. These often create, what I find, limitations. People are responsible for their own life and personality. However most takes places on a subconcious level. People do change over time, but it is never an easy change. The reason is because most people battle themselves...their concious vs subconcious. But in fact those two should be working together.

Causing a change isn't as easy as I make it seem. No it takes practice and can be very confrontational with yourself. You will have to take your subconcious and make it concious. See, feel, experience every thought and every personality trait you have and anything else. You will notice that a lot of personality traits and ways of thought are not how you truly want to be. You will feel uncomfortable with many observations about yourself. By acknowledging them to be there, without automatically casting judgement over them....you can then accept them and embrace your negative aspects. Accept them to be there instead of fighting against them. Once you've done that you can slowly get rid/alter your personality and way of thinking. This is basically how you change your moral system and anything else you want to alter, because you're feeling unhappy about them.

Is it worth doing so? Very much so. It'll be painfull and confrontational, but you'll learn more about yourself and everything around you. You will be able to become the person you truly want to be and solve issues because you'll understand that most issues were created in ways that make no sense at all when you think about it. You'll find more peace of mind and not only become more open minded, but more open hearted as well. Because you'll see that most dualistic is a way of shielding yourself out of harms way you'll end up not feeling the need to shield yourself off and show yourself....your true self.

How far is dualistic thinking usefull? In my opinion it's useless. There is only one aspect in which it is usefull. Since you're judging everything you're catagorizing everything. This makes it easier to have a clear over view in order to deal with matters. However...if you wouldn't judge, you wouldn't even have most issues to begin with. You wouldn't be spending a lot of energy and would actually have more left to spend on other things. More positive things to attract into your life and the peope around you.

People say this is Masterbation of the mind or that this way of "philosophical" thinking is useless. I'm sorry to disapoint you all. In my case it is experience - knowledge - wisdom. I actually live this way and never even thought I was being philosophical or living in a fake textbook world. This actually IS my life and I'm talking from years of experience.

Now let's be philosophical. What is this "real world" you all talk about? We all generate our own realities in which we live, microcosm.

This post has been edited by Sabazel: Dec 22 2005, 09:37 AM

this entire topic is about duality. The duality of "no duality" vs "duality. And you are one trying to prove the duality of no duality.

You think you are not being philosophical and do not live in a textbook world. This is another duality you voice. "being philosophical" vs "not being philosophical.

then you say one will have more positive things to attract in your life.
Duality: "positive" vs "negative"

you say it is worth it: "worth it" vs "not worth it"

you say it will be painful and confrontational: "painfull" vs "not painfull"

And even more extreme forms of dualistic thinking are in your mind:
You will be able to become the person you truly want to be.
"the person you want to be" vs "the person you do not want to be". This is extremely dualistic.

also in the end you make the point of microcosm vs macrocosm.

To answer your last question. The real world is reality. the microcosm is that part of the real world we percieve trough our senses. the real world is the entire real world, including the things we fail to percieve. However we cannot percieve it becouse our senses are flawed. as far as our personal reality goes we can only view our percieved microcosm.

I hope i have not offended you, but it would be impossible to offend one with no dualistic thinking. since "offence" vs "no offense" would not exist in your mind then?

I'm not offended in any way. I see my own flaws and have explained that I'm still learning/practicing. It takes time and to stop dualistic thinking is not something that can happen over night.

Being offended is something which could only occur when you're unaware of your own thoughts and actions as well as not recognizing your own short comings. Thus you will feel attacked when someone places their finger on the sore spot. Seeing that I am concious of my own abilities and thoughts, and also accepted them, I'm hard to offend.

Wonderfull, i was afraid i was being a bit to harsh.

My point is that it is impossible to overcome dualistic thinking.
One can be aware that dualistic thinking is personal, and the rules differ from person to person. But unless you are a god you cannot embrace both dualities. becouse that would mean enlightenment. Perhaps an enlghtened one is free from dualities. Then we must try it too.

One, should be aware that dualism in itself is an illusion. the mind does not define good and evil itself, the mind draws a line wich divides good and evil. And trough this line we may experience good and evil. This line exists truly, but only in the mind.

as mortals we are unable to view our experiences any other way, than measured from this line.

That is were wu wei, living in the moment, comes to play.
If you live in the moment, then you mostly do not do dualistic thinking. becouse you do not think about past and future. Essentially you do each action as it comes by. you could say that you make choises based on logic, and therefor there is only one possible result for each action to take.

However, this is not completely possible. Logic, i believe, is not always correct, the logical mind is part of the mortal body, i believe.

So, you will have some dualisms. In your life you must make choices:
keep the job, ditch the job.
eat a hamburger, not eat a hamburger.
study, do not study..

All these things are choices, and choices cannot be anything else than dualistic. a choice is by nature at least dualistic.

however, they are clearly of personal choice. not universal.

So while it is true, that dualism is fake, in true reality it does not exist, in our own mind, our microcosm it cannot be escaped completely.

what is the point then? If you are aware of this, then trough logic and reasoning you may push the boundaries of dualistic thinking.

Remember, dualism is a line, a divider. If you are aware of the nature of this line can constantly shape and push the divider according to your will, then it seems as if you have no dualistic mind. You will have a dualistic mind none the less, but it changes constantly.

that is why this is not mental mastrubation. these conversations give one a firmer grasp and understanding of this line. So you may aquire complete control over it.

Also, you pleasantly surprise me. Most people on forums cling to a point once they made it, not necesarily becouse it is true, but becouse their ego sees it as losing if they admit their error. Thats why they madly defend their posts and opinion, it becomes a battle of winning and losing arguments instead of a quest for knowledge.

You did not do that, and i must say i think that is a great form of wisdom you have. You are already in control of the ego. We must pursue knowledge in the end, not ego. Wonderful!!

In control of my ego? Well in a lot situations I am, however there are still several situations in which I react through primal instinct and intuition. These are personal times when my ego takes hold over me. People call me wise, some called me a Guru...but personally I don't share those opinions. I'm just me, another imperfect being who is learning more each and every day.

I also try to keep an open mind. It is the only way to hear things and see things in new ways in which you might've never thought about it. I've read a book from Emoto whome did research onto water crystals and the effects of words/sounds. Even though the research itself is onorthodox it still holds a lot of interesting new insights which will make you think. One of the things it made me realize was... Everything is energy and everything is in constant movement, it is free and not confined. When you make water, energy, stand still it will become stagnant. Slowly it will grow weaker and eventually die/fade away. Seeing that the human fysiology is made up of about 70-80% of water it would make sense that people should stay openminded. If you're closed you will become stagnant, including the energies and water inside of you. You'll harm yourself over time.

Truth is not so much an illusion, it too is open to interpetation. Everyone has their own truth which is made up of all which were mentioned in previous posts. The ego, personality, experiences, doctrinations which also form the morality you speak off. The final product is indeed the divider. So basically we all got our own set standards which we use to live our lifes. But we already agreed upon that.

Dualistic Thinking is interesting to think about, discuss and actually live it (as far as it is possible). The "Good vs Evil" aspect of dualistic thinking is as clear as water to myself. The other aspects still make me wonder, because the same rules don't seem to apply for some odd reason. However it makes you think and you will discuss topics which aren't directly related, but still are about the human psyche. You will come to a greater understanding of how the human mind, ego, personality, emotions etc work...also when looked at on a larger social scale. You will come to understand and notice the "Flaws" within yourself for once. Flaws which basically are the aspects you personally don't feel comfortable with...and then you can adjust it. Which also, automatically, adjusts the Divider Line you speak off.

I've learned that it is indeed great to live in the NOW and look at each event as if it is a new one. To look at each thought, action, event as a new one instead of looking at the chain reactions or conflicts which follow due to previous events. If you look at the chain you will start to realize that with each new event added to the chain your emotions grow and the situation escalations. Chain events which lead to conflicts can be avoided this way. But you will also lose out on Chain Events which build up positive emotions such as love. It's difficult to find a balance, but worth it. You can reduce frustrations and anger, which will only eat you up from within. You can also use it to enhance your expressions of love and happiness. But it requires anticipation, which also uses part of judging events.

This is why I feel confused about dualistic thinkin at times. I know that my thinking is partially flawed, but my feelings tell me that it is indeed possible to stop dualistic thinking. Life will always depend on you making decisions, almost every single second of the day. However do people also look at the events, look at various options before making the decision, understanding the effects each decision might have before making it and also the full capability of taking responsibility of the outcome of the decision no matter if it is positive or negative? Most people can not, because they can't look ahead that far or simply refuse to take responsibility. The main reason people can't is because most takes place unconciously as well as pre-programmed reaction. Being concious of all at all times is the key I feel.

I feel I'm digressing from the topic and got little more (new) to add to it all (IMG:style_emoticons/default/13.gif)

This post has been edited by Sabazel: Dec 23 2005, 12:33 PM

hehe, i agree with many points.

our problem with this discussion lies within the language we use. If we want to explain something like non dualistic thinking we can only revolve around the point. the point itself, non dualistic thinking, is not something the english language is capable to deal with. It is beyond human logic and requires a high level of enlightenment to understand.

I know what you are getting at, i can almost taste it. But we cannot explain. our language is too limited.

non dualistic thinking requires detachement, viewing both choices as the same value. when you can understand the following, then you understand non-dualistic thinking.

death = live
murder = giving birth
holocoast = population explosion
eating = shitting
eating = carb training
hot = cold
water = earth
air = fire
energy = no-energy
...

When you are able to understand that all dualities are the same...
There is only tao. and it flows.

Be aware that the above is reality, but not human opinion and morality. Human morality is important. Everybody desires to be happy, and to make someone happy you have to follow his personal state of mind.

It can be seen as this. if an enlightened one sees the truth, that does not mean he has to completely agree and surrender to it. We still have free will, so we can choose to make people happy playing upon there dualistic rules. That does not mean we have to agree to there rules.

Classic example is the girlfriend. Men often do something they themselves find completely stupid, just in order to make a girl happy. They do not believe the same dualisms as the girl, but they know what the girl believes and act accordingly.

So, one could say an enlightened one has one moral law: "making other people happy, just becouse (s)he loves everybody."

the precise details of this state of life, that seems to exist entirely of a state of love, cannot be described by human language.

Dualistic thinking is very relevant to people following spiritual paths of any kind, since it involves believers who claim to see and experience another existence and others who having not experienced anything they would describe as other-worldy, disregard these claims and it therefore divides people into two camps.

The language used is also a form of dualism as it separates entities into good and bad and places into discrete areas thus: Heaven and Hell.

Is dualistic thinking useful and a good way of hanging ideas on hooks for further exploration or does it lead to extremes of thought that lack balance and settle people into positions that are hard to find their way out of?

Dualistic thinking is indeed a flawed result of our education and pressures to conform to what is percieved as 'normal'. I prefer to at least attempt Uni-listic thinking. Young children have no problem at all with this, they call it 'make-believe'. Trying to 'get it back' is the hardest thing i've ever done. The ability to 'see both sides at once' is the ultimate desire for any magickal person. Visualize a young girl walking with her family down an everyday sidewalk. As they walk, she jumps from one particular colored block to another particular colored block to another, for no apparent reason to the rest of the world except her, and her parents grow angry and yell at her to 'hurry up!'. The spell she is creating in her alternate reality is as real as any major invocation. There is no good or bad in her mind, just the spell she is making. Ethics dictates we test the purpose/direction of all magickal works before we releasing them. Simply a quick 'gut-check' for a 'bad feeling about doing this' is sufficent to discern the validity of a working.

E.
Yule '05 (the Journey through the Underworld)
"Love and Hate in Balance, Through the Right Use of Will"

Fox it isn't so much the language/sound barrier which forms the obstacle. The obstacle of having the feeling we understand one another on in a thoughtfull manner. The fact that you seem to try to make it understandable for your mind is not the way, I learned that it is the emotions and feelings you have with it that give you the understanding. But as we all know...a lot of emotions can't be put into words. Similar to the "One picture says more then a thousand words" kinda deal.

The list you provided gave me a flash of the Mobius sign in my mind. In the way that...everything is connected. There is no end, nor a beginning and it just keeps going on in an eternal circle, so the speak.

How you explained it is similar how I feel about it. If you don't judge and look at each event as a solitary one you woný have dualistic thought and more of a "cause-reaction" based view on matters. Indeed like the Tao which is in constant movement and can't be defined nor controlled. If you make it go one way it goes the other.

Each and every little thing has a common ground which it shares. The most obvious is that everything is made up from energy. Our thoughts, emotions as well as various lifeforms. I wonder though...are there other things that everything has in common? Like humans who have different skin color, religious beliefs, social standards...but in the end we're all made up from flesh and 70-ish% water as well as energy. There we go, a common ground for ALL people to focus on and get rid of the differences and unneeded conflicts

That’s a very interesting discussion. From my point of view dualistic approach of a concept is a useful method to simplify complicate aspects. Assorting meanings, substances, etc in two opposite (or complement) categories make them easier to be presented, explained, comprehended, argued about, and in general been approached. As long as it is used, as such, it could be quite useful and I can’t find any reason why it shouldn’t been used. But only as long as it is perceived as a sophistical machination and doesn’t become self intended.

I would like to make a comment on the strict meaning of the term. Dualism presumes separate origin of two different and irreducible principles, if a theory, doctrine, philosophy, etc at some point unites the two elements in a common origin, it can’t be considered dualistic. Consequently Yang and Yin principles or the Christians’ approach to God-Devil concepts are not dualistic, as they do not presume separate origin of the two elements. Examples of totally dualistic religions are Zoroastrism and various Gnostic sects (Catharism, Manichaeism, etc) but even in them separate origin presumption is not very clear at some points.

I would like also to mention the following argument about the contradiction of dualism : According to dualism creation consists of pairs of opposite elements of a separate origin, Good-Evil are of opposite origin and the same applies to soul and body (or mind and matter). If soul and body are viewed from the dualistic perception (separate origin) then since neither of them is purely evil by nature, the existence of an Evil mind (principle) is impossible in a dualistic creation and consequently the Good-Evil duality does not exist. (By the way that’s not my argument and I would appreciate if someone could remind me who formulated it. I am breaking my head to remember where I have read this).

Pythagoras (all things are composed of contraries, soul-body duality) and Empedocles (the world is dominated alternately by two opposing principles) theories are dualistic. Plato’s philosophy (soul exists independently of the body, the world of Ideas as an opposite of material worlds) also contains dualistic elements. That doesn’t diminishes their value, or the ideas that we can draw from them. (Though, personally I always preferred Heraclitus and Aristotle, to them).

If, when presenting my thoughts I‘ll see that I can do it better using dualistic approach of a subject, I will do it. At the same moment I don’t think that my views are dualistic in anything (and by that I don’t mean that I have manage to reach monism, but rather that I am in a pluralistic state of mind).

Based off all I've read from this thread:

It all depends on who you are. Everyone has their own way of thinking so whether you want to believe it or not everyone practices dualistic thinking. Let's say you "didnt" practice dualistic thinking then one could say "dualistic vs. non-dualistic" applies to you and in that sense youre thoughts are dualistic.

In life you make your own choices, you may chose whether you think murder is good or evil, it is all up to you. You cant just think nothing of it or you wouldnt be doing much thinking, feeling, or sensing in your life at all. "Breathing vs. Not breathing" if you didnt chose a side then were would you be?

Its like this, If you took out some "bread to make toast", did you take out toast since you already knew its purpose and as far as youre concerned it is toast?
Is it bread because thats the form it was in when you took it out and you thought of it as bread even though you knew you were going to make toast?

In my opinion, you have to chose at some point or your mind would just be void. "Thinking vs. not thinking" You chose thought so therefore you used dualistic thinking.

Note: Just applying all of your rationals and showing you how easily you're self-contradicting.

-Chris

haha actually, dualistic thinking in itself is a pretty silly thing. makes no sense whatsoever. unless to you it makes sense. again, all up to you.