View Single Post
  #18  
Old 14-01-2018, 02:56 AM
Gem Gem is offline
Master
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Australia
Posts: 22,075
  Gem's Avatar
Quote:
Originally Posted by FallingLeaves
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?

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?
__________________
Radiate boundless love towards the entire world ~ Buddha
Reply With Quote