What is Dualism - courtesy of A_Smoking_fox Options

What is dualism.

When we have established what we think dualism is, A_Smoking_Fox would like to branch off into and discuss different parts which will probably go into a new thread.

Which part of dualism are we interested to explore in this topic.

So any offers?

Dualism is the theory that considers reality, or a particular domain of it, to consist of two different and irreducible principles or categories of elements.

Now, what part to explore… Since good vs. evil dualism seems to be developed a lot in other topics, I would suggest mind vs. matter (or mind vs. body, or soul vs. body, or mental vs. physical) concept (which by the way I intend to oppose), with or without restrictions about the way of approach. Personally I would prefer philosophical approach, without restrictions : a) about theological notions, as some of the arguments defending it simply can’t stand without accepting divine interference and b) about the exact phrasing of the dualistic concept, as it has changed during the centuries that this argument is continuing.

Dualism is the theory that considers reality, or a particular domain of it, to consist of two different and irreducible principles or categories of elements.

Now, what part to explore… Since good vs. evil dualism seems to be developed a lot in other topics, I would suggest mind vs. matter (or mind vs. body, or soul vs. body, or mental vs. physical) concept (which by the way I intend to oppose), with or without restrictions about the way of approach. Personally I would prefer philosophical approach, without restrictions : a) about theological notions, as some of the arguments defending it simply can’t stand without accepting divine interference and b) about the exact phrasing of the dualistic concept, as it has changed during the centuries that this argument is continuing.

heres a bunch:
(IMG:style_emoticons/default/banana.gif) )dualism as expressed in ourselves, half physical and half spiritual

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/banana.gif) )our hybrid natures (earthly and 'image of creator') apparent in appendixes and tailbones and junk dna, etc.

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/banana.gif) )dualistic creation stories - Enki and Enlil, God and the Serpent, etc. (possibly to explain the one above?)

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/banana.gif) )conscience and free will

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/banana.gif) )unawakened and the awakened

E.

all lovely ideas.
But perhaps a bit to specific? We will surely pass upon those ideas.

I was thinking more like, dualism in the mind, the logic, from ourselves thus.
Or dualisms outside of us, black white, hot, cold, movement, stillnes.

I was thinking it would be more interesting to study that of the mind, since that seems to be a more interesting field. However, we should agree on this before starting. Since these seem to be the two catogeries of dualisms.

Also, we must be careful with our definition of dualism, we need its concept clear. And now i am having trouble with the realism part in your definition, since it makes it possible to have multiple ideas of realism. Either we will have to clarify realism or we need to adjust your defenition a little.

Dualism is the theory that considers an element, to consist of two different and irreducible states or categories of the element.

Feel free to adjust. If we are to come to a clear conclusion on this vague object, we will need the basis of our conclusion to be as solid and stable as possible.

I agree about “reality” being an inappropriate term, it is a subjective description needed to be defined by its own first before being used, but I also don’t agree with the “element” term in this case.
The problem is that the theory can refers also to the entire universe like in theology when it examine the creation of the world, or to a part of it, like when it examines the relationship between what we see inside our mind in connection to what is exist in the material world.
I am also not certain about the “states”, I think in this case the term should imply source.
So something like :

Dualism is the theory that considers the universe or a part of it, to consist of only two different and irreducible origins or categories of the element.

P.S. I don’t like the “part of it” description, but I can’t find one to replace it.

P.S. I don’t like the “part of it” description, but I can’t find one to replace it.

Maybe you would get some satisfaction and further understanding from this article?


http://www.taroscopes.com/highwindowsartic..._priestess.html

(IMG:style_emoticons/default/angel.gif)

Dualism is the theory that considers the universe or a part of it, to consist of only two different and irreducible origins or categories of the element.

Nice, good thinking, but its still lacking a little.
This time we can fall over the universe part in the defenition. Is the mind part of the universe or not? This definition i fear would limit us directly to the dualisms in the physical world. And i have more interest in discussing the dualisms inside our mind personally.

However we can see where this goes.

Dualism is the theory that considers any possible thought or thing, to consist of only two different and irreducible origins or categories of the element.

Another fallacy is that this defenition agrees that everything must have a dualism. Thus it is a bit too black and white. While some may follow this belief i fear that it would be to easily refuted. And if the defenition is refuted we would be back at step 1. Thus to make progress i say we account for the possibility that not everything has to be a dualism.



Dualism is the theory that considers some possible thought or thing, to consist of only two different and irreducible origins or categories of the element.

At first sight this last defenition seems to suit me well, however for the sake of truth it is necesary that we are all certain that this defenition is correct. Because this is the foundation we will use to build our house of reasoning in this topic upon.

Alafair, i value your input, but the point of this topic is our own philosohpy. It is best that it is built itself from the ground. After all we are seeking truth here for our selves. Thus we must agree on every step of the way. We cannot use steps layed down for us. You can come back when we are further in this topic and defend the views of that link you posted. But first we will all have to agree on a defenition of what dualism is. There is no point in discussing dualism if everyone is discussing some different defenition of dualism that just shares the same name.

The point of this defenition is to make sure that later on in this topic everyone is bound by that defenition and stays on that topic. To avoid needles conversations.

Also, may i ask the moderators to delete posts if they are completely beyond our layed down defenitions. So that the topic stays clean. For now we do not have a defenition yet, but later on the defenition should be respected by those posting in this topic.

This post has been edited by A_Smoking_Fox: Feb 25 2006, 08:19 PM

(deletable)

definition of duality and mind - Leibniz's Law of Identity?

from http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/d/dualism.htm

Dualists commonly argue for the distinction of mind and matter by employing Leibniz's Law of Identity, according to which two things are identical if, and only if, they simultaneously share exactly the same qualities. The dualist then attempts to identify attributes of mind that are lacked by matter (such as privacy or intentionality) or vice versa (such as having a certain temperature or electrical charge). Opponents typically argue that dualism is inconsistent with known laws or truths of science (such as the aforementioned law of thermodynamics), conceptually incoherent (because immaterial minds could not be individuated or because mind-body interaction is not humanly conceivable), or reducible to absurdity (because it leads to solipsism, the epistemological belief that one's self is the only existence that can be verified and known).

Dualists in the philosophy of mind emphasize the radical difference between mind and matter. They all deny that the mind is the same as the brain, and some deny that the mind is wholly a product of the brain. This article explores the various ways that dualists attempt to explain this radical difference between the mental and the physical world. A wide range of arguments for and against the various dualistic options are provided in the article.

Substance dualists typically argue that the mind and the body are composed of different substances and that the mind is a thinking thing that lacks the usual attributes of physical objects: size, shape, location, solidity, motion, adherence to the laws of physics, and so on. Substance dualists fall into several camps depending upon how they think mind and body are related. Interactionists believe that minds and bodies causally affect one another. Occasionalists and parallelists, generally motivated by a concern to preserve the integrity of physical science, deny this, ultimately attributing all apparent interaction to God. Epiphenomenalists offer a compromise theory, asserting that bodily events can have mental events as effects while denying that the reverse is true, averting any threat to the scientific law of conservation of energy at the expense of the common sense notion that we act for reasons.

Property dualists argue that mental states are irreducible attributes of brain states. For the property dualist, mental phenomena are non-physical properties of physical substances. Consciousness is perhaps the most widely recognized example of a non-physical property of physical substances. Still other dualists argue that mental states, dispositions and episodes are brain states, although the states cannot be conceptualized in exactly the same way without loss of meaning.

E.
"If its got a knife, just shoot it!"

I have no problem with not mentioning the whole physical world in our definition.

I would propose however, except of “thought and thing”, to include also a reference to something that is not a thought, but also is not material, maybe in this case “state” would fit?

Dualism is the theory that considers some possible thought or thing or state, to consist of only two different and irreducible origins or categories of the element.

Do you think we should discuss only one kind of dualism of the mind? I mean, only the case of mind described as a sum of properties in contrast to that of matter’s properties, or the case of mind as a substance that is characterized by these properties, but is more than the collection of the properties it possesses, in contrast to matter? Or predicate dualism, which concerns the cases when mentalistic predicates can’t be expressed as physicalistic predicates and explores the difference between something (material or not) and its description as we perceive it?

Do you think that maybe we should also agree on a definition of the mind, here, from the beginning, or leave it for the discussion of the topic, later? In any case, I think that definitions of terms used by the part of dualism which we will agree to explore will be also needed, as for example what mind means, can differ from one person to another.

Also, will we accept Leibniz's Law of Identity (x is identical to y if, and only if, for any property p had by x at time t, y also has p at t, and vice versa) to define in which cases the two examined factors will be considered identical and consequently their proposed duality regected?

Alafair, thank you for the link. I found it very interesting (the particular page as well as the rest of the site). But I have to agree with A Smoking Fox, that at the present moment we are seeking a definition, with which we will be able to agree all that it express what dualism mean for us.

Alia, i like your style. Very good reasoning, perhaps a bit over my head, but i'll try to manage.

I accept this last defenition as i can see no flaws in it. Unless someone else can perfect it even more i suggest we go on with that one.

Do you think that maybe we should also agree on a definition of the mind, here, from the beginning, or leave it for the discussion of the topic, later? In any case, I think that definitions of terms used by the part of dualism which we will agree to explore will be also needed, as for example what mind means, can differ from one person to another.

Good thinking, we would be wise to define the mind first in this case.

I'll try something, its a rather different view on the mind.

The mind is the screen on wich everything we interact with is projected.

Now i realise that this defenition is a bit to general, so if we where to agree that this represents the mind, then we will have to choose a part of the mind to explore. Like only our thinking, or even more specific as you suggested.

I think it would be logical to accept Leibniz's Law of Identity. If we are to go by logical reasoning we have little choice.

Also, i think i should say were i want to go with this discussion. The point were i am trying to go to is to see wheter good and evil, hot and cold, high or low, pleasant or unpleasant. Are any different at all, or if the difference is an illusion.
However, i do not wich to discuss if black and white, liquid or solid, light or dark. Are different or not.
The second are things that are provable in the real world, thus valid states that can be seen by science. The first part is based in human logic and the mind.
Now the question is, are these first dualisms illusions or not.
Therefor we needed to define dualism first, and now we will have to see just how we can define it so that we stay in that first branch of the mind. Otherwise someone could say that it can be scientifically proven that black is black and white is white and so refute our whole reasoning by a simple fact. But it cannot be proven that something is 'hot' vs 'cold', a beer of 30° is hot, a bath of 30° is cold, etc... But the more interesting one is good vs evil. right vs wrong.
We will see were logic leads us for now...

So, could we say that we want to explore the relativity (or difference or connection) between pairs of thoughts or things or states that mind interprets as opposite and are not described by scientific definitions in such a way that the use of the mental description carried no information that could not be expressed without it?
For example, what is hot or cold depends on my perception at the moment, but what is black or white is defined very specifically by science and one could substitute these last terms by their scientific definitions and say exactly the same thing.

I am giving below what I interpret as “mind”, but I was thinking that trying to agreeing about it (or about other terms that might occur), may getting us dangerously off topic each time. For example, I don’t agree with definition of the mind as a screen, on the other hand someone could not agree with the attributes that I have assigned to mind or with my definition in general, but if we start a discussion about it, it could go in length. Maybe it would be merely enough if someone, before developing his thought, would mention how he interprets the main terms that he will use.
Now, for me mind is a non-physical phenomenon, partly identified with, and partly distinguished from the soul that is manifested in thought, perception, self-consciousness, emotion, will, memory, imagination and reaction to the environment.
Using these attributes I can understand if I consider something good or evil, hot or cold, high or low, pleasant or unpleasant, but can they also assist me in seeing beyond that?

So, could we say that we want to explore the relativity (or difference or connection) between pairs of thoughts or things or states that mind interprets as opposite and are not described by scientific definitions in such a way that the use of the mental description carried no information that could not be expressed without it?
For example, what is hot or cold depends on my perception at the moment, but what is black or white is defined very specifically by science and one could substitute these last terms by their scientific definitions and say exactly the same thing.

Yes, thats where i want to go exactly.

As far as the defenition of the mind goes. As long as we can limit what the the mind does it is good enough. Just how it does this is not so important for our discussion, and it would lead us, as you say, of topic.
Your defenition is better suited for this discussion than mine, i sometimes get to magical in these things, wich leaves to many options open for a decent discussion.
I am willing to go then with this defenition.

The mind is a non-physical phenomenon, partly identified with, and partly distinguished from the soul that is manifested in thought, perception, self-consciousness, emotion, will, memory, imagination and reaction to the environment.

To me, dualism references four different kinds of two-fold dynamics:



1. dichotomy: x / not-x

-- where x and not-x are not the same

-- where x and not-x can be, but are not necessarily, poles of a polarity, antithetical with each other, or complements


2. polarity: x / y

-- where x is not-y, and y is not-x

-- where x and y can be, but are not necessarily, antithetical and/or complements

-- where x and y are the two diametrical extremities along a continuum of combinational gradiations from one to the other


3. antithesis: (x vs. y) and (y vs. x)

-- where x is not-y, and y is not-x

-- where x and y can be, but are not necessarily, poles of a polarity

-- where x either negates (or attempts to negate) y

-- where y either negates (or attempts to negate) x


4. complementarity: x and y

-- where x is not-y, and y is not-x

-- where x and y can be, but are not necessarily, poles of a polarity

-- where x and y can be, but are not necessarily, antitheticals

-- where x has that which y is lacking, and y has that which x is lacking, such that when x and y integrate together through relationship they complete each other.



ALthough I associate all four of those two-fold dynamics with the general term "duality," - when exactness is required, I use whatever specific term amongst those four is accurate for explaining the appropriate two-fold dynamic being discussed.

This post has been edited by Praxis: Mar 3 2006, 06:04 AM

praxis, work with us a little.
We have posted a defenition on dualism a few posts back. Are you suggesting that our defenition needs some more work? Then rewrite the defenition a little.
Whatever you consider duality doesn't really matter. The defenition is just a tool we need to start philosofising. Its basicly where we consider two possible states for x to be in. we have x in one state and y as another state. Now we wonder if x and y in two different states are different at all. Perhaps they arent.
Please note that we are likely to discuss the dualisms in the mind. Wich is a little different than physicial dualisms.

I hope you are willing to discuss these possibilities with us.

‘Fox, I am approaching working with you a little on this.

My approach began with explaining those four possibilities for two-fold dynamics – with the admission that other kinds of two-fold dynamics might exist of which I am not aware. Perhaps the explanation that I offered regarding dualism might elucidate the definition provided earlier. At any rate, what I offered serves as a basis for further explanations that I subsequently add - which is how my consideration of duality matters.

Its basicly where we consider two possible states for x to be in. we have x in one state and y as another state.

If you are positing something that is in two possible states, then I would generally symbolize this state with the variable z, such that:

z can be in state x and y.

At which point, one or more of the two-fold dynamics that I explained above, for the relationship of the two possible states (x and y) of z, could come into play.

i.e. x and y could be poles of a polarity, antitheticals, and/or complements in relation to each other.

*****

As an example –with regard to the mind/body dualism - where mind is x and body is y:


As dichotomy: mind is not body, and body is not mind.

As polarity: mind and body are two extremities along a continuum of combinational gradations from one to the other.

As antithesis: mind is the bane of body, and body is the bane of mind, each struggling to overcome the other.

As complements: mind has functions that body does not, and body has functions that mind does not, yet when integrated together through relationship they complete each other and form one mind+body system.

*****

Now we wonder if x and y in two different states are different at all. Perhaps they arent.

If x and y – the two possible states of z - are not different ...

If they are the same (if x = y)...

Then I do not see how their relationship together could be classified as any kind of duality.

In that case, what seems to be happening to me is that one thing is just being referenced according to two different terms.

*****

But you know what – maybe I have missed the specific situation that you folks have been talking about here.

If you are talking about “dualisms in the mind” – which states exactly is the discussion supposed to be focused upon?

Are you exploring the dualistic possibilities for mind and soul, as the last couple of posts suggest?

This post has been edited by Praxis: Mar 3 2006, 01:33 PM

Well, what we were to explore and the definition was changing gradually, as we need to end up with one definition, which we would agree that express what dualism is for us.

What we was saying to discus is if x and y thoughts, or things, or states, which mind considers dualistic could be one thought, or thing, or state and their duality an illusion of our mind, or not (if it isn’t an illusion). X and y described, exactly, by scientific definitions excluded of topic.

We probably will need to use references to substantial, property and predicate dualism, as well as the way our mind works, amongst other approaches that might occur in the process of our exploration, but the topic is none of them.

We maybe could say that we want to debate the dualism itself, in the specific area (and only in it) defined and restricted by the topic, and see where it will lead us.

But we need to reach a definition of dualism with which we are all to agree first.

I use your model to classify different dualistic terms, and it end ended up, with it forming a little bit differently for me:

Contradictory
1. dichotomy: x / not-x
2. polarity: x / y
3. antithesis: (x vs. y) and (y vs. x)

Complementary
1. dichotomy: x / not-x
2. polarity: x / y
3. antithesis: (x vs. y) and (y vs. x)

I think that any dichotomy (x / not-x), or polarity (x / y), or antithesis: [(x vs. y) and (y vs. x)], could be seen as complementary, or a contradictory and whether someone classifies two terms as one or the other (complementary, or a contradictory), depends on his philosophy and general approach of life.
It could be helpful to have a structural model for the dualistic terms to refer to. Maybe we could change it in a way that we all find it acceptable and include it in the definition?
But Praxis, we still need your definition of dualism. As A Smoking Fox suggested, modify the definition that we had reached some post above, or change it completely, just provide us with the reasons why you are not agreeing with it, as it will be helpful in order to conclude to a definition acceptable by all of us. Or, simply let us know if it is acceptable by you as it is.

This post has been edited by alia: Mar 3 2006, 04:22 PM

now you have made your point clear i get the picture.
These different types of dualism will certainly be helpfull in our discussion.

We must then modify our defenition, so that it recognises these subsets.
We must also define proper defenitions for all these categories of dualism.

So perhaps the defenition of dualism is then:

Dualism is the theory that considers some possible thought or thing or state, to consist of only two different and irreducible origins or categories of the element. Each dualism must always be categorized as either a dichotomy, a polarity, a antithesis or a complementarity.

Anyone care to try to define these categories?

Well, 'Fox - I just re-read the entire thread again, and I think that I finally got what you two meant with regard to a definition.

So, let me take one step back - to make sure that I join you two a bit more, here.

Dualism is the theory that considers any possible thought or thing, to consist of only two different and irreducible origins or categories of the element.

I would probably have written that as:

Dualism is a theory for explaining experiences according to two different states.

- which does not really change the essence of what was meant, but just seems to me to make it a little broader (because dualism can be used for explaining more than either thoughts or things), and bit more concise.


But now, let me ask a question here, because my attempt to make it more concise might be from not clearly compreheneding this:

Could either (or both) of you explain again why the specific phrases "irreducible origins" and "categories of the element" were included?

I’ll answer the question about why the specific phrases "irreducible origins" and "categories of the element" were included and wait a little bit to answer about the definition, because I think we were writing all simultaneously the last post that each one of us has posted.

The reason we included the description "irreducible origins" (at least from my point of view), is because of dualism insisting on different sources of the two elements. This, for example, left dualistic philosopher for centuries arguing how (and if) are mind and matter interacting and explaining it by Interactionism, or Epiphenomenalism, or Parallelism theories. The whole point of dualism is that the two terms x and y are deriving from two different origins.

The reason we included the description "categories of the element", is because of the property dualism that deals with mind and matter as with two organized collections of properties (bundle theory). Even if personally I have serious doubts about such approach, it is an existing approach of this subject and could be used during the discussion of the topic. Do you think we must remove it?

I liked the “experience” term that Praxis used, but I think it needs an object (like, the experience of what?), but not the “state” term for reasons described above, as well as in previous posts.

I also agreed on including the descriptions of different forms of dualism in my previous post, but made a modification of them, so I would like to know your opinion on the modification, before trying to define the categories.

This post has been edited by alia: Mar 5 2006, 03:58 PM

Alia, I have been considering this for a couple of days now.
At this point, I am just going to remain focussed on observations regarding the definition.

Dualism is the theory that considers any possible thought or thing, to consist of only two different and irreducible origins or categories of the element.

Now:

The reason we included the description "irreducible origins" (at least from my point of view), is because of dualism insisting on different sources of the two elements. This, for example, left dualistic philosopher for centuries arguing how (and if) are mind and matter interacting and explaining it by Interactionism, or Epiphenomenalism, or Parallelism theories. The whole point of dualism is that the two terms x and y are deriving from two different origins.

Although I comprehend that dualism requires two elements which exist in relation to each other, I do not comprehend why two elements engaged in a dualistic relationship must come from two different sources – because one source can originate two different elements which engage according to a dualistic relation together.

This does not mean that two elements from two different sources cannot engage each other according to a dualistic relation together.

This just means that requiring irreducible origins as part of the definition would exclude relations involving two elements from a single source from being covered by dualistic dynamics.

Based upon that, I question putting in the irreducible origin requirement for two elements engaged in dualistic relation.

**********

The reason we included the description "categories of the element", is because of the property dualism that deals with mind and matter as with two organized collections of properties (bundle theory). Even if personally I have serious doubts about such approach, it is an existing approach of this subject and could be used during the discussion of the topic. Do you think we must remove it?

(arghs) I must admit that I am still unclear about what exactly the phrase “categories of the element” means.

To this point, I have been using the term “element” specifically to reference the two variables in dualistic relation with each other. I am not sure if “categories of the element” refers to categories that are aspects of those variables, or if the phrase means something else.

Can you either explain, or reiterate, that phrase in any way that explains what the element there mentioned is?


Thanks.

If the two examined terms (x and y) can be reduced to the same source, then they are elements or properties or aspects of that one source and in such case we have monism (for cases at least like mind and matter, or good and evil), or they are elements (properties, aspects) of one term (z) that could be examined in connection to its opposite (w). In case of our interpretation (or experience) of hot and cold, for example, or high and low, (x & y) can’t be caused to a subject (a person), at the same moment (time t) by the same object (source, or origin), as it depends on the circumstances applied at that moment. Or, at least that is the dualistic perception. (Proving that this can be done, by the way, would be an approach to disprove dualism). Now, terms like right and wrong, or pleasant and unpleasant, depending completely on someone’s perception (at least at my opinion), while usually can be treated as the previous terms, I believe that at some cases could be caused at the same moment (time t) by the same source and exactly that (again I think) could, maybe, be proved to be a weak spot of dualism.

(I used in the above paragraph the terms that A Smoking Fox brought as examples of what he was thinking examining, with the Leibniz's Law of Identity, which we had said with A Smoking Fox to accept as a definition for cases that the two examined terms will be considered identical).

Each one of x & y, of course, could be caused by more than one source and that could be covered by “categories of elements”, (I didn’t had that in mind when I was choosing this description, because I was thinking mainly about mind-matter dualism at that moment, but it occurred to me that, it covers that case also).

I used the “categories of elements” expression to describe “collections (bundles) of properties”. I mean the x and y could be described as the properties that they posses (in case of mind and body, for example, mind is mental, it thinks - body is physical it acts, etc) and this two collection of properties could be seen as the two opposite categories (x & y), under examination. I thought at that point that “collections of properties” didn’t cover other cases like the cases in which one term is used to refer in general to a category of something (spiritual & material, for example).
I was also thinking (picking up this term) of good and evil, with its various representatives in different religions and also, uniting terms like physical evil, moral evil, evil spirits, evil gods, under one word “evil” in my mind. (Even if I didn’t suggest it as a subject, I was having it in my mind as an example when I was forming the proposed definition). So instead of “collections of properties” it turned out “categories of elements”, “elements” being a word that could have many meanings, from physical to spiritual.

Also Praxis, I would like to mention that the last definition about which A Smoking Fox and me had agreed, was

Dualism is the theory that considers some possible thought or thing or state, to consist of only two different and irreducible origins or categories of the element.

(It includes "state", also).

If the two examined terms (x and y) can be reduced to the same source, then they are elements or properties or aspects of that one source and in such case we have monism (for cases at least like mind and matter, or good and evil), or they are elements (properties, aspects) of one term (z) that could be examined in connection to its opposite (w).

Two variables originating from the same source could be elements, or properties, or aspects of that source – yet such is not necessarily so, because all effects are not necessarily elements, properties, or aspects of their causes. A source can cause two different effects – then those effects can engage a dualistic dynamic together. Just as two sources can each cause a different effect – then those two effects from those two different sources can engage a dualistic dynamic together.

Based upon that, I do not comprehend how dualism would not more relevantly apply to the relation dynamics of two variables – regardless of whether they originate from either the same source, or different sources.

An argument could be made that hot and cold come from different sources in an environmental context, and that hot and cold engage some dualistic dynamics together in relation to each other. However, hot and cold also could be argued to come from the same source: stimulation of a body’s physical nervous system, which then subsequently differentiates the stimulation as hot and cold through discerning their dualistic dynamic together in relation to each other.

In either case, the dualistic dynamics of hot and cold in relation to each other can be clarified regardless of whether their origin is considered to be one source, or two different sources.

This is why I questioned including the language about "irreducible sources" in the definition.

This post has been edited by Praxis: Mar 8 2006, 09:24 PM

Yes, one source can have two effects which will be opposite one to the other. But these cases leave always open the approach of dealing with them as a total of the cause and its causations. Since, the target is to end up with one definition; even if I had never applied the term “dualism” to describe these cases, I guess the one covering the broader range of interpretations is the more useful, as basically it covers what dualism is for me, but include also another category.
Well that was useful, I can imagine us arguing about some dualistic aspects and having each one in our minds a different description of what we are speaking about.

But, do you insist on using the expression “different states”?
I think “states” leaving many aspects out of description and “different” does not presuppose opposition, two aspects could be irrelevant and still different.
Maybe we could use "elements"?

However, hot and cold also could be argued to come from the same source: stimulation of a body’s physical nervous system, which then subsequently differentiates the stimulation as hot and cold through discerning their dualistic dynamic together in relation to each other.

I will disagree here; body’s physical nervous system is just the medium for our mind to perceive kinetic molecular energy or the lack of it, as “hot” or “cold”. I mean, our perception reaches our mind through reaction of our physical nervous system, but there must be a cause for our physical nervous system to react to it and send the message, (which will be combined with intentions, or expectations etc at that moment and conclude if something is hot or cold, I could characterize water of the same temperature as hot or cold, depending on what I intent to do with it).

Okay, alia - I am cool with just using "elements" to reference the two that are in dualistic relationship with each other.

With regard to saying that they are different - well, the two elements have to be different (compared to each other), otherwise what is being discussed is not really two elements relationship together... it just ends up being one thing being talked about according to two different ways. i.e. using two different words for referencing the same thing.

Differentiation is not necessarily opposition. Opposition is a kind of dynamic that two different elements can engage when relating together - just as two different elements can relate together without necessarily opposing each other.

Praxis, I was referring to the last definition you had proposed. I should have made a quote in my previous post to show to what I am referring to.

Dualism is a theory for explaining experiences according to two different states.

I mean, if we say just “different elements” without any other definition of the word “elements”, one could imagine two things, anything in general. Would you consider them a dualistic pair, if they are not dichotomy, polarity, antithesis, or complements? Or according to my proposition, if they are not contradictory or complimentary?

I used the word “opposition” to describe in general, the categorisation of dualism, about which we haven’t reached an agreement, yet. I didn’t use the categories that you or I had described, in order not to bring into the discussion something on which we haven’t argued yet, before reaching an agreement about the present matter.

What I was meaning is that I don't find different an appropriate term to for the definition of dualism, if it is not accompanied by some other definitions of the “elements” term. The definition that A Smoking Fox was proposing in his last post was covering that. But, then I think that since opposition presuppose difference the word “different” can be replaced by the terms consisting the categories of dualism (I am borrowing the word that A Smoking Fox used to refer to the description that you had made for the possibilities of two-fold dynamics, because the word "model" that I used maybe is not the right English word).

If we can agree on that, maybe we would discuss the categories of dualism that you and I had proposed in our previous posts, in order to find the word (probably words I think) to add to the definition? And I think that we also have to give definitions for these terms (whatever we agree them to be).

So maybe the definition that A Smoking Fox had proposed could be modified to the following form :

Dualism is the theory that considers our experience of some possible thought or thing or state, to consist a two-fold dynamic of …?........?…. elements, or categories of the element.

I placed “….?...?...” in the point, which, I think, we have to agree first in our categorization, in order to fill it, so, I am leaving it blank for the moment.

PS1. I liked very much the term “two-fold dynamics” so I merged it into the definition.