Seeing things as they are not is a positive way to not get entangled in yourself and open to a new way of relating. The issue with language as I have learned is that language does change through the awareness of yourself (more complete) in a non dual state, but if the whole self hasn't integrated this more holistically as you, then you will notice language will still fall prey to a dual response..

The subtle and not so subtle energy that flows through words often depicts the nature of integration. Its all about the "feel" aspect that many over ride believing the mind is a solo player to ending duality, when its the whole self inclusive as a total expression of itself.

IF non duality had a humour what mask would it wear- Hmm let me ponder for a bit.

Wouldn't be the mask of ponderability?

whether you call it invalid based on that criterion depends on your point of view, e.g. on what you value. I'm given to understand that some people quite like a good fight and might find this very validating...

Your post, FallingLeaves, 'spired the following post. Related?

A player is not a player until cards are dealt. Being a player certainly validates that one is in the game and everything that entails.

In the beginning was the word (cards dealt).

perhaps... but I see that there is quite a bit of disagreement on what it 'entails'.... so can't validate that the idea of disagreement is itself invalid. Because if it were as invalid as we might wish to suppose, it wouldn't have been one of the cards played?

Yes that seems to be so. By invalid I simply mean in terms of not being interested in mutual undertanding which I value.

How would you describe your purpose when engaging in discussion?

Depends on the game. In some games the joker is used.

I think it relates to duality as agreement/disagreement, and the very meaning of agreeing is opposed to the meaning in disagreeing. In a more fundamental way, this pertains to the known, as we agree on what we think is true (the opposite being obvious). This is the dialectic structure of knowledgeable discourse. To support what we 'know is true' we compile evidence to support it, and in a more or less 'argument format', set about convincing ourselves and others. Another person doen't wan't to to be convinced, so they point out all the flaws in the evidence as they disagree.

This then becomes focused on the identity and it becomes I'm right/you're wrong, which is a power dynamic created by the relative subject positions. It is also obvious how authority enters here, and the 'one who is right' will draw on authority figures such as a great spiritual teacher in order to ampify the power of their voice, and defeat the other. As we can see the dual element litters this whole passage so far.

Discourse itself, however, is not necessarily dualistic, because the dialectic structure of a friendly conversation just ebbs and flows, changing subjects, and no one knows where it is going to go - there is no agenda pushing it in any particular direction, and no one trying to convince anyone else of 'what is true'. The conversation can go one for hours, personal stories intermixed with topical subjects, without agreement or disagreement, and even where agreement/disagreement arises, no importance is given to it, and all party's world view is affected.

So basically, words in use are not necessarily dualistic. Indeed, the meaning of a word is very broad and nuanced within the larger context. If we were to say words are dualistic, we would have to assume all communications are dualistic, body language, facial expression, expressive sounds like 'mmmm'. How can it be dualistic when 'mmmmm' may communicate contemplating, something delicious, physical attraction and a number of other meanings?

Wouldn't be? Or would be did you mean?

Your words confused me somewhat..

Either way.....