|
|
Post by Ishtahota on Nov 27, 2013 21:27:29 GMT -5
I do not know why people have to complicate things as much as they possibly can. Duality and non-duality are simply two different types of consciousness. Each are like main operating formats on a computer. People in duality polarize everything in their outer world because that is the reflection of their inner world. (As inside so also outside). The product of duality is a split brain and a split consciousness. Only using about 10% of the brains ability is a byproduct of this state of consciousness. The brain itself is only an interface between the higher-self and our earthly consciousness.
A lot of people think that you lose your individuality when you make the shift from duality to non-duality. You do become one with all, but you are still you. Non-duality consciousness is a world of Devine paradox where that paradox makes perfect sense.
|
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Nov 27, 2013 22:42:21 GMT -5
I do not know why people have to complicate things as much as they possibly can. Duality and non-duality are simply two different types of consciousness. Each are like main operating formats on a computer. People in duality polarize everything in their outer world because that is the reflection of their inner world. (As inside so also outside). The product of duality is a split brain and a split consciousness. Only using about 10% of the brains ability is a byproduct of this state of consciousness. The brain itself is only an interface between the higher-self and our earthly consciousness. A lot of people think that you lose your individuality when you make the shift from duality to non-duality. You do become one with all, but you are still you. Non-duality consciousness is a world of Devine paradox where that paradox makes perfect sense. In terms of computers the simple interaction of user friendliness is underpinned by the complexity of computer code. The code itself is then based on the simple binary numbers. I'm looking into the function which is prior to binary, and it's not actually complicated, it's just that the mind needs representations to reconcile things. Once the brain creates a 'binary' it has also creates at least four componants, just to define one point... which we than see as a binary comparison. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 27, 2013 23:53:35 GMT -5
One shred of meaning that can be read into this, and that seems to me an underlying assumption, is the objective existence of these two things, which of course, is not supportable. "One has to keep in mind that we are not dealing with a dimensional object here, it's a mathematical concept that occupies no space" The "supposed" pair. The dual relationship isn't about two things. As I have explained, duality is almost always assumed to be two things. Opposites, separation, contrast, yin/yang and so on all imply two things... Obviously, I'm saying that's not the case. Positing dual relatives is really as fallacious as positing 'one thing'. I'm saying this is all a function... there isn't a nothing or a thing or duality or the three I recently mentioned. It shows that certain relationships are completely mutual in that all component parts affect each other equally. In so saying, this also means that there are no parts per se; it's indicative of a function of symmetry which necessarily underlies dimension... and in saying a defined location requires a larger set of relatives... what this subject covers is non-spacial. The contradiction is that you disclaim any form of objectified unity ("fallacious one thing") and then in the next breath charge right ahead in doing just that ("all a function"). The structure shifts the conceptual focus away from objects and things or a objectified unity and onto the processes that relate them, and sure, that could result in an interesting discussion -- but regardless of how the relation is described, to relate requires orientation and in the orientation there is multiplicity, or at least, as it has been described, the appearance of multiplicity. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 27, 2013 23:58:15 GMT -5
I do not know why people have to complicate things as much as they possibly can. Duality and non-duality are simply two different types of consciousness. Each are like main operating formats on a computer. People in duality polarize everything in their outer world because that is the reflection of their inner world. (As inside so also outside). The product of duality is a split brain and a split consciousness. Only using about 10% of the brains ability is a byproduct of this state of consciousness. The brain itself is only an interface between the higher-self and our earthly consciousness. A lot of people think that you lose your individuality when you make the shift from duality to non-duality. You do become one with all, but you are still you. Non-duality consciousness is a world of Devine paradox where that paradox makes perfect sense. Hey Ishy -- some folks have minds that smash things into a million little pieces just 'cause that's the way our minds work man. It's actually a bit of a challenge in that there seems to be an answer just around the corner (and I'm not saying that lolly is looking for this kind of an answer, btw)... but all that's ever waiting there on the other side of the turn is the Devine Paradox.  |
|
|
|
Post by tzujanli on Nov 28, 2013 0:14:45 GMT -5
Greetings..
Both duality AND non-duality are attachments to ideas/beliefs about what is happening.. the mind can become still and silent, and what is happening will continue to happen.. the need for duality or non-duality to appear to be superior to the other, right and wrong, is a function of the experiencer's attachment to 'thinking'.. Life happens, and the conflict between duality and non-duality is an imagined conceptual distraction from the happening.. the rationalizations used to try to justify some aspect of the duality/non-duality conflict are excuses for the inability to just let it go and deal with what is actually happening..
Be well..
|
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Nov 28, 2013 0:15:03 GMT -5
"One has to keep in mind that we are not dealing with a dimensional object here, it's a mathematical concept that occupies no space" The "supposed" pair. The dual relationship isn't about two things. As I have explained, duality is almost always assumed to be two things. Opposites, separation, contrast, yin/yang and so on all imply two things... Obviously, I'm saying that's not the case. Positing dual relatives is really as fallacious as positing 'one thing'. I'm saying this is all a function... there isn't a nothing or a thing or duality or the three I recently mentioned. It shows that certain relationships are completely mutual in that all component parts affect each other equally. In so saying, this also means that there are no parts per se; it's indicative of a function of symmetry which necessarily underlies dimension... and in saying a defined location requires a larger set of relatives... what this subject covers is non-spacial. The contradiction is that you disclaim any form of objectified unity ("fallacious one thing") and then in the next breaht charge right ahead in doing just that ("all a function"). The structure shifts the conceptual focus away from objects and things or a objectified unity and onto the processes that relate them, and sure, that could result in an interesting discussion -- but regardless of how the relation is described, to relate requires orientation and in the orientation there is multiplicity, or at least, as it has been described, the appearance of multiplicity. Ok, I meant that one thing doesn't exist by virtue on no relation, and that there is a function of relation that precedes any thing. A 'thing' would minimally be space itself. Multiplicity... ok... first we can acknowledge that a location is derived from the interaction of four coordinates, and this gives space a discrete quantity... but that quantity can not actually be established because the aforementioned function is immeasurable. Where exactly any location is, is also uncertain because any one of the four coordinates could possibly represent the exact placement (if such a place existed...) |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Nov 28, 2013 0:22:04 GMT -5
Greetings.. Both duality AND non-duality are attachments to ideas/beliefs about what is happening.. the mind can become still and silent, and what is happening will continue to happen.. the need for duality or non-duality to appear to be superior to the other, right and wrong, is a function of the experiencer's attachment to 'thinking'.. Life happens, and the conflict between duality and non-duality is an imagined conceptual distraction from the happening.. the rationalizations used to try to justify some aspect of the duality/non-duality conflict are excuses for the inability to just let it go and deal with what is actually happening.. Be well.. Sure, this is merely a philosophy for intellectual entertainment, but it does also suggest that "the conflict between duality and non-duality is an imagined conceptual distraction from the happening". The philosophy actually dispels that one-ness or two-ness have any discernible difference apart from the ways in which they are conceived in the mind, and as this philosophy is delved into I can see my mind trying to use symbols to reconcile some intellectual understanding... even 'the mind' seems completely unidentifiable and in itself it is symbolized as a thing. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Nov 28, 2013 0:35:25 GMT -5
The contradiction is that you disclaim any form of objectified unity ("fallacious one thing") and then in the next breaht charge right ahead in doing just that ("all a function"). The structure shifts the conceptual focus away from objects and things or a objectified unity and onto the processes that relate them, and sure, that could result in an interesting discussion -- but regardless of how the relation is described, to relate requires orientation and in the orientation there is multiplicity, or at least, as it has been described, the appearance of multiplicity. Ok, I meant that one thing doesn't exist by virtue on no relation, and that there is a function of relation that precedes any thing. The question of descendent you're presenting just restates the question of chicken or egg -- in entangling the relationships and the objects the traditional form makes the problem easier to grasp, but the question is the same either way it's presented. A 'thing' would minimally be space itself. The assumption of the void carries with it the baggage of an underlying assumption of objectivity. Multiplicity... ok... first we can acknowledge that a location is derived from the interaction of four coordinates, and this gives space a discrete quantity... but that quantity can not actually be established because the aforementioned function is immeasurable. Where exactly any location is, is also uncertain because any one of the four coordinates could possibly represent the exact placement (if such a place existed...) The multiplicity actually starts with the void and the objective assumption. What you're discussing there are actually the characteristics of the void: the primary being limitlessness and a consequence of that limitlessness being no center and no boundary -- ie: no absolute or preferred position within the void. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Nov 28, 2013 1:13:50 GMT -5
Ok, I meant that one thing doesn't exist by virtue on no relation, and that there is a function of relation that precedes any thing. The question of descendent you're presenting just restates the question of chicken or egg -- in entangling the relationships and the objects the traditional form makes the problem easier to grasp, but the question is the same either way it's presented. A 'thing' would minimally be space itself. The assumption of the void carries with it the baggage of an underlying assumption of objectivity. Multiplicity... ok... first we can acknowledge that a location is derived from the interaction of four coordinates, and this gives space a discrete quantity... but that quantity can not actually be established because the aforementioned function is immeasurable. Where exactly any location is, is also uncertain because any one of the four coordinates could possibly represent the exact placement (if such a place existed...) The multiplicity actually starts with the void and the objective assumption. What you're discussing there are actually the characteristics of the void: the primary being limitlessness and a consequence of that limitlessness being no center and no boundary -- ie: no absolute or preferred position within the void. Did you just write inside my text box, or did I screw up my quotey things last time? If we see it as the chicken and the egg, the egg and chicken are one function, because we don't really concern our self with two 'things'... we look at the function of chickeggen. Hehehehe. This function doesn't come from anywhere. I had previously explained that nothing is also one 'thing's' non existence by virtue of nil relation, and two 'things' is also fallacious as the relation is indefined, the trio relation doesn't reqire space so it's not the mentally separateable three 'things' and the quad relation merely represents a location (though the coordinates are not 'things'). Space is nothing to the same degree that it is minimally quantised... minimally meaning no lesser is at all possible. The void is a different thing, though. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 28, 2013 1:57:53 GMT -5
Sure. Two things is merely the generally accepted 'illusion' of duality. The relative proportion between two things doesn't provide the definition required to... well - it doesn't provide a definition, hence the assumption of definition, like opposites, for example. Do you mean that the differences between two things doesn't serve as a definition of the things? By "relatively" do you mean 'define each in terms of the other'? Well, it seems to me there may be many differences between them, but if we posit a case where there is just one difference, (Say one is smooth and the other rough), how does that make them the same? Seems to me they are different by virtue of one being smooth and the other rough. I don't understand. |
|
|
|
Post by enigma on Nov 28, 2013 2:08:48 GMT -5
I do not know why people have to complicate things as much as they possibly can. Duality and non-duality are simply two different types of consciousness. Each are like main operating formats on a computer. People in duality polarize everything in their outer world because that is the reflection of their inner world. (As inside so also outside). The product of duality is a split brain and a split consciousness. Only using about 10% of the brains ability is a byproduct of this state of consciousness. The brain itself is only an interface between the higher-self and our earthly consciousness. A lot of people think that you lose your individuality when you make the shift from duality to non-duality. You do become one with all, but you are still you. Non-duality consciousness is a world of Devine paradox where that paradox makes perfect sense. So there are people in duality and people in nonduality? People who think dualistically and people who think nondualistically? |
|
|
|
Post by Reefs on Nov 28, 2013 2:10:51 GMT -5
Ok, I meant that one thing doesn't exist by virtue on no relation, and that there is a function of relation that precedes any thing. The question of descendent you're presenting just restates the question of chicken or egg -- in entangling the relationships and the objects the traditional form makes the problem easier to grasp, but the question is the same either way it's presented. A 'thing' would minimally be space itself. The assumption of the void carries with it the baggage of an underlying assumption of objectivity. Multiplicity... ok... first we can acknowledge that a location is derived from the interaction of four coordinates, and this gives space a discrete quantity... but that quantity can not actually be established because the aforementioned function is immeasurable. Where exactly any location is, is also uncertain because any one of the four coordinates could possibly represent the exact placement (if such a place existed...) The multiplicity actually starts with the void and the objective assumption. What you're discussing there are actually the characteristics of the void: the primary being limitlessness and a consequence of that limitlessness being no center and no boundary -- ie: no absolute or preferred position within the void. Rule of thumb: Chicken is always first! |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Nov 28, 2013 2:28:06 GMT -5
Sure. Two things is merely the generally accepted 'illusion' of duality. The relative proportion between two things doesn't provide the definition required to... well - it doesn't provide a definition, hence the assumption of definition, like opposites, for example. Do you mean that the differences between two things doesn't serve as a definition of the things? By "relatively" do you mean 'define each in terms of the other'? Well, it seems to me there may be many differences between them, but if we posit a case where there is just one difference, (Say one is smooth and the other rough), how does that make them the same? Seems to me they are different by virtue of one being smooth and the other rough. I don't understand. The difference between two things does not define two things, so a dual relationship doesn't have the form that mind usually conjures. We can say one is smooth and one is rough, but we completely ignore colour and size. What we call a rough thing is has a huge multitude of composite parts. If we say that a blank background and a single point is two things, we are not speaking of a dual relation. The dot for example relates to the backround in terms of colour and size so the point in itself has two properties... one thing is its colour and the other thing is its size. if we remove either one of these relations... no dot. If we retain the background it has some form, a colour and a size and maybe it's 2 dimentional within a 3d context etc... so even a blank entails several defining elements that enable its formation... even the conceived space has several relations which enable it to be conceived. |
|
|
|
Post by lolly on Nov 28, 2013 2:29:17 GMT -5
Do you mean that the differences between two things doesn't serve as a definition of the things? By "relatively" do you mean 'define each in terms of the other'? Well, it seems to me there may be many differences between them, but if we posit a case where there is just one difference, (Say one is smooth and the other rough), how does that make them the same? Seems to me they are different by virtue of one being smooth and the other rough. I don't understand. The difference between two things does not define two things, so a dual relationship doesn't have the form that mind usually conjures. We can say one is smooth and one is rough, but we completely ignore colour and size. What we call a rough thing is has a huge multitude of composite parts. If we say that a blank background and a single point is two things, we are not speaking of a dual relation. The dot for example relates to the backround in terms of colour and size so the point in itself has two properties... one thing is its colour and the other thing is its size. if we remove either one of these relations... no dot. If we retain the background it has some form, a colour and a size and maybe it's 2 dimentional within a 3d context etc... so even a blank entails several defining elements that enable its formation... even the conceived space has several relations which enable it to be conceived. Oops, forgot ... yes relatively means that things are defines in terms of another |
|
|
|
Post by Ishtahota on Nov 28, 2013 8:19:05 GMT -5
I do not know why people have to complicate things as much as they possibly can. Duality and non-duality are simply two different types of consciousness. Each are like main operating formats on a computer. People in duality polarize everything in their outer world because that is the reflection of their inner world. (As inside so also outside). The product of duality is a split brain and a split consciousness. Only using about 10% of the brains ability is a byproduct of this state of consciousness. The brain itself is only an interface between the higher-self and our earthly consciousness. A lot of people think that you lose your individuality when you make the shift from duality to non-duality. You do become one with all, but you are still you. Non-duality consciousness is a world of Devine paradox where that paradox makes perfect sense. So there are people in duality and people in nonduality? People who think dualistically and people who think nondualistically? Thinking non-dualisticly is a process. Something that has to be worked at. And for some people that are lucky they can tap into it while meditating. At that point it is not a way to think, it is a type of conscious awareness. I have known a few who have tasted this state of consciousness, but none including myself can stay in it, as far as I know. I do not know how anyone could be fully awakened and function in this world of ours as it is today. Some of my elders have ceremonies that can awaken us for short periods of time, to accomplish certain things, healing, finding lost objects, getting information from the other side, and/or things that we cannot do while in duality consciousness. |
|
