Is the nature of Being itself dual, or is duality a 'property' of human logos?

[qwe]

In what way does it not work physically? Conceptually it is a permeating, self-similar and purely identical condition everywhere in every manner, so it makes no distinctions, was my clarification of the matter of it not being able to be shewn that way, in any way, but was there for sake of novel argument.

i genuinely don't understand the basics...

if atoms were shrinking, all at the same rate, that would be physically detectable. even if everything was shrinking at an equal rate...

That's a transcendental opinion and therefore a presupposition.

a "lens" is something that any computer can use. it's a narrow perspective that gives output behavior based on input behavior, or gives output cognitive thoughts/memories. you can program a "perspective" into a computer, our biocomputers in our heads use many of them. the computational structure used by this software is relatively understood and able to be simulated with known equations; it is physical in nature. why would you say otherwise?

 

[Quantum Perception]

^ the brain does not account for all conscious activity, look up the binding problem. Also why do you limit that structure of perception only to the brain. That's like saying digestion is only done by the stomach, or only the heart gets the blood around the body. The brain is APART of a system/network of things including the external environment.

This is an externalist position in phil of mind jargon, Alva Noe has a book on this called "Out of Our Heads"

 

[Nagelfar]

i genuinely don't understand the basics...

if atoms were shrinking, all at the same rate, that would be physically detectable. even if everything was shrinking at an equal rate...

Not if space in-between the atoms was shrinking at the same rate; that's all I am saying; it would be indistinct and indeterminate.

a "lens" is something that any computer can use. it's a narrow perspective that gives output behavior based on input behavior, or gives output cognitive thoughts/memories. you can program a "perspective" into a computer, our biocomputers in our heads use many of them. the computational structure used by this software is relatively understood and able to be simulated with known equations; it is physical in nature. why would you say otherwise?

That doesn't untie physical nature from your thoughts about it. The jump to pure physical nature has not been made. Computers do not display a POV observant consciousness; the jump from equating your consciousness to your 'biocomputer' rather than your biocomputer to a result of your consciousness, is a jump to becoming reliant on something beyond your immanence; which is actually an impossibility. How can you ever be in the potency of something observed? You create the observed consciously before any. Simply because something is analogous in function/conditionate, does not make it of the same origin/condition.

Read the eighth paragraph in my first post in this thread for exactly what I mean.

This is an externalist position in phil of mind jargon, Alva Noe has a book on this called "Out of Our Heads"

Not even to say 'out of' or 'within', but having nothing to do with spaciality (not even "everywhere" or "nowhere" empirically); our spaciality, our location of somewhere 'physically', is a grounding objective locus meant to give substance to our truly non-spacial spacializing of consciousness.

 

[ColtDan]

very deep thread, i like this

 

[Quantum Perception]

the "out of" does not mean that consciousness is located out there( i agree with the non-spatial comment), its meant to refer that it is not located only in the head, therefore "out of our heads" is an expression to signify that we had the wrong idea about where consciousness takes place; it's not telling us where exactly it takes place.

 

[Nagelfar]

As an objective loci it is a syllogism to what 'brain matter' is retained in our heads, but since mind is a subject and not an object, that is why it is non-spacial. I'm not saying that the analogy/syllogism isn't complete as in the brain from all that the mind has wrought, just that it is something wrought in mind before it can be established with any historicity in a 'brain'.

...

As to the shrinking argument, if our local universe was shrinking entirely, atoms and space in between atoms, but somewhere beyond immediately observed measurement (out past a borderland for distant stars - like we were as a black hole, a compactification of matter for all the local universe) it existed where it wasn't shrinking: that would appear as if all distant parts of the observed universe were moving away from us; and science does believe that space is not "an aether of uniformity in space" as such. So with just those variables it is relatively defensible. (light from distant stars would shrink as it approached us, so wouldn't be ever bigger particles or waves, for instance)

 

[qwe]

atoms and space in between atoms

okay, i have the picture in my head, of the idea now. that makes sense (i mean to say, it's "defensible"). it'd mean that the constants for the forces that hold our atoms together (strong/weak/electrical forces, and gravity for planets/galaxies) are not in fact constant, and are also shrinking along with space. you were right, we wouldn't be able to detect any such change in the constants, if everything is shrinking "in sync."

what would this idea help us explain or understand?

 

[Nagelfar]

what would this idea help us explain or understand?

Relativity. That for instance, the moon may be the center of the universe, all one has to do is adjust the calculations accordingly and make that the point from which all physical laws gravitate & irradiate. Although it may defeat humanity's idea of occam's razor by some other condition, it is "possible" with all other factors unknown. This example would show that processes of the universe are understood the same way, not just a relativity of static constants beholden to those processes: that they're relative being is on account of their by-laws and activities as well as given qualities.

 

[Dedbeet]

Is the nature of Being itself dual, or is only human thought dual?

sickness - health
good - evil
oneness - multitude
before - after
thin - thick
young - old
self - other
less - more
becoming - being
rest - movement
sameness - difference
...

Is the nature of Being itself dual or is human thought (logos) dual? Would it be possible for something to exist non-dually (even if there weren't conscious beings to perceive the duality). In other words: is duality perceived by humans or is it intrinsic to the nature of Being itself?

Human thought is dual. In fact, human thought is duality.

Being is what it is. You can't say it's either unitary or dual, only experience it directly as it is (in other words, be it). It needs nothing, wants nothing and is utterly unafraid.

"Would it be possible for something to exist non-dually?"

No -- because existence/nonexistence is a duality. What isn't dual, is non-conceptual and direct. Thought has nothing to say about it, not even that it's existent or nonexistent.

 

[High Yogi]

Nature itself is dual and the most obvious example of this would be the natural formation of male and female, which in fact symbolic of yin and yang, the two universal polarities.

 

[cosmic._.ape]

that question makes me lonely

we have a companion: non existence

how can we meet her...?

 

[Nagelfar]

Human thought is dual. In fact, human thought is duality.

Being is what it is. You can't say it's either unitary or dual, only experience it directly as it is (in other words, be it). It needs nothing, wants nothing and is utterly unafraid.

"Would it be possible for something to exist non-dually?"

No -- because existence/nonexistence is a duality. What isn't dual, is non-conceptual and direct. Thought has nothing to say about it, not even that it's existent or nonexistent.

Something could "exist" potentially but not "manifest"; which really just means 'become objectified'. Existence plus nonexistence is traditionally unified as "becoming" (i.e. being & nonbeing are together 'becoming')

Nature itself is dual and the most obvious example of this would be the natural formation of male and female, which in fact symbolic of yin and yang, the two universal polarities.

What about organisms which spontaneously reproduce by themselves without an opposite sex partner (asexual reproduction?), or egg laying species; or the inclusion of three or more sexes with the fusion of three or more gametes? Being is mind, and mind as it solidifies does so 'dually', mind is inwardness but not an 'inwardness' which implies that there is something more beyond outside, but that all outside is inside; and inside is infinite.

 

[ebola?]

Something could "exist" potentially but not "manifest"; which really just means 'become objectified'. Existence plus nonexistence is traditionally unified as "becoming" (i.e. being & nonbeing are together 'becoming')

This sounds a lot to me like the 'latent potentialities' of Hegel and Marx (key conditions of how dialectics unfold). However, it also seems that here too, being and non-being 'coexist' (or don't apply).

Is the point of dialectics to interrogate the viability of dichotomization into being and non-being by setting them as 'moments' of a dynamic flux?

Being is mind, and mind as it solidifies does so 'dually', mind is inwardness but not an 'inwardness' which implies that there is something more beyond outside, but that all outside is inside; and inside is infinite.

I would argue that all inside inheres 'outside' as well, wrought of the conditions of potentiality for the emergence of this interior. However, this outside, of conditions of possibility, is not the 'matter' of empiricist observation.

ebola

 

[qwe]

Nature itself is dual and the most obvious example of this would be the natural formation of male and female, which in fact symbolic of yin and yang, the two universal polarities.

i don't like this argument. the binary system is quite stable for mating systems, but we could just as easily have evolved three sexes. the development of male and female is no less "natural" (i cringe every time this word is used) than the hypothetical three-boobed threesome species.

we have a companion: non existence

how can we meet her...?

people will say drugs and the spiritual experience, but i think they're alluding to something different when they say this (they mean a particular set of subjective feelings, related to transcending the inward-outwardness of consciousness)... how can we meet *actual physical* nothingness? yeah, it's an odd thought. see last paragraph for one half of why we can't*

Something could "exist" potentially but not "manifest"; which really just means 'become objectified'. Existence plus nonexistence is traditionally unified as "becoming" (i.e. being & nonbeing are together 'becoming')

in this case, i would say that the something-yet-to-manifest, and the something-manifested, equally do not exist. they are patterns of energy, patterns being the keyword. what really exists is energy dancing/playing in the "reality matrix of fun energy".

the map is not the territory. here, territory means reality, and map means any possible reality the human neurological system can model.

Being is mind, and mind as it solidifies does so 'dually', mind is inwardness but not an 'inwardness' which implies that there is something more beyond outside, but that all outside is inside; and inside is infinite.

sure, a mind must set up this duality in order to function in the normal sense of the word... but transcendence of this very duality is common with the right methods. so i agree that the universe is not dual, but i don't agree about your conception of the mind being fundamentally dual (if i understood correctly).

I would argue that all inside inheres 'outside' as well

in the sense that the inside"" is formed by, and is in with dynamic interplay with, outside"", i agree.

about duality... i consider all dualities products of neurological logic, and i consider these products indirect attempts at modelling a "something"... what's "real" (or seems real) cannot be directly touched by our will/direct-consciousness (the horror). giving one reason why we can't touch physical nothing.

*the other half of why we can't touch physical nothing: because it's a false duality in the first place? AKA i don't know.

NB: inebriated posting.

 

[Nagelfar]

I would argue that all inside inheres 'outside' as well, wrought of the conditions of potentiality for the emergence of this interior. However, this outside, of conditions of possibility, is not the 'matter' of empiricist observation.

I agree in that the outside is the objective moment of the infinite inwardness of the inside, and exists inside. Though seeing it that way, I see the outside as emerging from the inside, and not the other way about.

sure, a mind must set up this duality in order to function in the normal sense of the word... but transcendence of this very duality is common with the right methods. so i agree that the universe is not dual, but i don't agree about your conception of the mind being fundamentally dual (if i understood correctly).in the sense that the inside"" is formed by, and is in with dynamic interplay with, outside"", i agree.

Maybe you didn't understand correctly; I meant by "mind solidifies" that when mind objectifies; it does so as a process creating duality, not that it was dual in nature, it can't be, because subject & object must be one for it to exist, and I thought this was implied in my saying that all the (multiplicity/duality of) the outside (the dual objectification of externality) is found in that the mind exists inwardly, and is everything, and is infinite; an infinite unity of all dualities reconciled in the unity of inwardness.

 

[Pindar]

To add to this discussion..the dualism of human thought plays around the dichotomy of presence and absence, that, engrained in our consciousness since toddlers, formed the basis of language..."The nature of Being itself", is "fixed and unchangeable" to use Parmenides, and therefore holds in itself no division.