Comprehending Dualistic vs. Monistic understanding

[tmdoca]

I try to think in this subject area a lot, but practically, I am having trouble really accepting a "monistic" perspective. I think it is because the process I use happens in this way: I see an apparent dual pair and I think "it is a lie to say that is two things" as opposed to saying "that is one thing." It sounds like a subtle difference but I think it is significant.

For example, I will have to first analyze two scenarios (i.e. the present moment and not the present moment) to see they actually are of the same manner, as opposed to originally seeing them as the same manner expressed in two scenarios.

Does anyone understand the issue I'm having? Any chance you have words of wisdom to reconcile my problem? Also, since I rarely discuss things with people who are interested in discussing them, I have a knack for entirely misinterpreting concepts, so there's a distinct possibility I am not talking about dualism/monism at all.

 

[Psyduck]

This is a complicated philosophical problem; nobody has an answer for it... well, actually, real philosophical problems don't have definite answers anyway.

I really recommend reading this text on Heraclitus. It's written beautifully and explains in a playful way the notions of duality/unity. You can easily skip some parts of the text and read only some other parts. It gives many intuitive examples about duality/unity/contradiction.