Quote:
Separateness is an illusion. Very beautifully noted. In my opinion, without this personal, direct and physical cognition of this, we are not yet at the ultimate point. Time and space is an interplay of consciousness. Again, Buddhism points to this in its teachings on dependent origination. I have seen eternity although it only felt like a moment, but such memories are remembered. Thanks for your ruminations on this topic, Starman :smile: |
Quote:
Hi Starman, |
Quote:
I agree, differentiation is a better word to use. Thanks for the clarity.:smile: |
Quote:
I prefer the term 'distinction'. :smile: |
Quote:
This is an example of how, and why, there are so many different writings and perspectives on that same one thing, and disagreements in this world about how it is viewed. Approaching 70-years of living here on Earth and I have often felt it is easier to get older than it is to get wiser.:hug3: |
Wow, this is beautifully stated. Thank you.
|
Quote:
It might be a strange thing, but I have been thinking about the depths of geometry for some years now, and developed something I call 'dot theory', which is really an inquiry into form ('creation') as a relationship (which 'duality' implies). The theory is based in distinction because our experience of form is subjective, but I assume 'the mind' has universal operation, and suggest distinction is the way in which we can discern one thing from another. In physics, for example, the math describes a distribution without any formal quality until a 'observer' becomes present, and this occurs when there is a 'collapse of the wave function' and a discrete particle manifests (though a particle can also be 'an observer'). It isn't a causal system, so if we reframe the observer language, we could describe creation as 'a perception'. This is the crux of dot theory, as I use a small collection of dots to represent 'things' in relation to each other, and the thought experiment, which entertains me so, is to 'become a dot' and observe other dots. Well that's how I worked out the theory, but I went on to describe it as a geometry. First I have to define a 'dot'. I think Euclid's definition, "That which has no parts", is a good one. You have to understand that a dot isn't really a dot. It is just used to represent 'that which has no parts'. It actually isn't situated anywhere, nor occupies any space, and its like a 'non formal object' so we just say 'it is' and have no definition for it, but represent it as a dot for the sake of simplicity. Then we can represent duality as two dots, and in so saying, declare a relationship exists. This is when each dot takes on some sort of property which is determined by the quality of the relationship. In short, one dot is defined in relation to the other. What occurs here conceptually is you envisage 2 dots in space, and indeed that is precisely how I represent it, but this means the space is a third element against which the dots are contrasted, which is actually a 'triology'. Importantly, a dot, it itself, does not occupy space, so two dots don't require space (remembering a 'dot' is merely representation of 'the partless'). This is where it becomes a deeper philosophical inquiry into duality, for all we can say is, the property (singular) of one is determined by the other, but we cannot ascertain with 'two parts' alone what said properties are. Only that the system has 2 (indeterminable) inter-defining properties. We simply know that they are not 'the same', and because they are two, the difference, or the quantity, of the system is infinite - infinite in that it cannot be defined. This is where the theory expands as a philosophy to draw a direct association between uncertainty and infinity. We usually conceive of infinity as really really big, but actually, it is merely the immeasurable 'difference' entailed in duality. Conclusion: The duality of opposites is fundamentally incorrect. Duality is a far more nuanced relationship that we can represent visually (and only by using the simplest of symbols), but can not possibly visualise or conceive of in the mind in any way. So, the Tao of duality isn't something answerable, it's the most subtle form of koan possible, literally. |
Quote:
opposites are identical in nature,but different in degree; extremes meet; all truths are but half-truths; all paradoxes may be reconciled."--The Kybalion. This is one of the Seven Hermetic Principles which has been established in the esoteric sciences, and I get my reference to duality from it; in that opposites are identical in nature but different in degree. Absolutely everything in this manifested creation has an opposite. Even colors and musical notes have their opposites. So opposites, in my opinion, are but extremes of the same thing, and those extremes may be distinct from each other yet they are continuum's of the same thing. Mathematics is said to be a universal language and there is something called the “sacred geometry” but I feel there are very few things, if anything, which is objective; as you have stated “one dot is defined in relation to the other,” or one part is defined in relation to one part; e.g. we all stand very much alone together. You have developed a very astute theory, even though admittedly it will take a few readings for me to totally grasp it. In spirituality duality is often attributed to the mental processes, or thinking mind, as the fundamental process of thinking is to compare and contrast, indeed, we draw distinctions by comparing and contrasting. We also store things in our memory by comparing and contrasting them. The human mind is very big on analysis, or taking things a part and examining each part, while many spiritual perspectives do not follow that process, as they are more into synthesis, or bringing things together. Ideally analysis would lead to synthesis, but given an objective point of view synthesis or reintegration is rarely sought. Most are happy with all of the parts UN-assembled into a whole, bearing in mind that the whole is much more than the sum of its' parts; not saying any of the parts are separate although they may have various distinctions which might be viewed separately or differently. Still the transcendental state suggests we see the oneness in everyone and all things. The illusive nature of things lye in our unrefined perception of them; in my opinion if we could view life at the quantum level we would hold a very different perspective. |
Quote:
Hahaha, that's a watered down version. Quote:
I don't think we can perceive things in a pure one state, and what they call 'separation' is more like a realisation by self reflection. In this context the duality is 'two the same', rather than 'two different'. In the geometry, the dual dot relation is said, "a is to b as b is to a". The expression is one of relation rather than one that defines by differentiation. The way I term the two parts, though, is, "they differ to the exact degree that they are the same". Teehee. |
Quote:
its interesting you write all this down and end by telling what it is in your opinion what does it mean having all these words in you ? does it give you a feeling you know some thing ? not actually having experienced all you talk about at all ???? like talking about a far away land and knowing what it s like to be there when you have never left your house ? |
All times are GMT. The time now is 09:41 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
(c) Spiritual Forums