Duality.

[Gem]

It is the basic distinction...

What 'we' like is a neat package like 'all is one', but one is just a numeric device used to indicate the singlular, and it says nothing about the nature of being which is felt existentially.

The can be no debate that things are distinct from each other...

Can we not see how meaningless this has become? How does 'one' better explain existence than 'duality'...

Would it be better to say that things are distinct but inseperable from that distinction?

[psychoslice]

Yes there is so called duality, there is so called Oneness, and yes they are just words meaning really nothing at all.

Yes it has become meaningless, because there is too much said about what cannot be said, but it works on both so called levels, if we are on one level and ignore the other, we then are throwing out the baby with the bath water.

I see the reality of what IS, and i also see the shadow of what IS, to me both are inseparable, but to be clinging to either, especially the shadow, is to cause suffering in ones life.

All this stuff really is beyond philosophy, beyond mere words or the love of words to describe all that IS, so i have said too much already lol.

[Moonglow]

Hello,

I was reflecting on duality/non-duality the other day.
Presenting some thoughts on this.

Duality suggests, to me, conflict. One side conflicting with the other.
In their natural state though it seems that one side is just being what it is.
Is there conflict in this of itself?

Meaning for example that, IMO, Light does not conflict with Dark. Dark allows Light to be and visa versa. In the seeing of image one sees the two interacting and dependent upon each in order to form the image.

Would say that each is distinct in its nature and hold qualities there of.

Each interacts with the other and with in the interaction there seems to be a continuing act of creation (formation).

How one perceives and forms an identity of the image or interaction, to me, creates the duality (conflict).

Recognizing the distinctions and allowing these to be may create a non-duel sense of things and then one may realize what one is defining it to be is more based on a preference more so then what it is.

This too can create a duality. But is more with the person then in what is being observed.

I feel in their formation each has its own distinction, but what gives these things life or animation is of the same basic substance.

I think it was Einstein who related it to the Atom, others relate it to energy. What exactly it is don't know for sure.

Just added thought here. In its distinction or could say individualization something is separate in that it is in its form of itself, but connected in what creates and holds the form. In its nature not in conflict but a part of.

I know a bit of a ramble.
Peace

[Gem]

I never really think about it a lot, but our mind can't differentiate between just two things, because it defines 'this' as being 'not that'... and when there are but two both of them have this exact same quality.

[r6r6]

Originally Posted by Gem

I never really think about it a lot, but our mind can't differentiate between just two things, because it defines 'this' as being 'not that'... and when there are but two both of them have this exact same quality.

Hi Gem,

I would make and amendment or addendum to latter above by stating, that, a curved surface--- ex a sphere --- has a concave-convex duality i.e. the convex cannot exist without its complentary dual the concave, howevrs, if "qaulaity" has to do with how concave-convex relate to incoming medium-- EMRadiation/photons ---they definitly have differrent effects on the incoming medium.

I also think one of the purposes of human acccess to mind/intellect is to have the ability to make distinctions, that are not made by other less complex animals.

Distinction appears to me to be similar to differrentiation.

-1 0 1+ trinary not binary.

There does appear to be some fundamentally cosmic binary i.e. dualistic sets but there there may be as many, or more cosmic trinary sets.

I dunno. My cosmic heirarchy--- posted elsewhere --- has four distinct catagories at the top of the cosmic heirarchy but there are indeed a distinction in that three involve space and one does not.

That is two sets but not a balance set i.e. 3-1 ratio

1 non-space

3 space

So I dont think that is binary nor is it symmetrical dualty, tho two catagories.

Rybo the Rybot

P.S. Your signature =

I don't have a signature yet.

[Gem]

Originally Posted by rybo

Hi Gem,

I would make and amendment or addendum to latter above by stating, that, a curved surface--- ex a sphere --- has a concave-convex duality i.e. the convex cannot exist without its complentary dual the concave, howevrs, if "qaulaity" has to do with how concave-convex relate to incoming medium-- EMRadiation/photons ---they definitly have differrent effects on the incoming medium.

Ok... let me disect, because we often make models and say they mean 'this', but rarely do we investigate the process by which our mind conjures the model.

It's an important area to consider because there isn't really a place where the mind becomes a entity which is entirely seperated from the universe, in that the perception of phenomena occurs to (the assumed entity) mind.

First... we have to realize that all existence is validated by mindful realization of it, and without that, existence itself is quite irrelevent.

Combining the facets above, we can only assume that what we have, is 'a perceived universe'.. ie it exists as a thought.

Now, we of western mind already know everything is energy, but how we define energy (the ability to do work) is quite different to the oriental way of seeing it as Qi, Chi... The Life Force.

In either sense... there are flows or forms energy... but in the absence of change (ie movement) there is no defining feature, but on the other hand there is no destruction nor creation of energy, only the changing form of the universe.

Now I get to the point where you have presented me whith a shape, which is a dimensional entity which has boundries within an infinite space.

Your model consists of the line, both concave and convex simultaneously.. The space we'll call 'outside' the curve is the reference which deems it convex and the space we'll call 'inside' the curve deems it concave, therefore, the shape 'curved line' an interaction between three defined components; 'inside' 'outside' and 'curved line'.

If one component is removed from this group, leaving only two parts, the entire model collapses and there's just emptyness.

I also think one of the purposes of human acccess to mind/intellect is to have the ability to make distinctions, that are not made by other less complex animals.

Totally Agree. The curved line is a by product of making a distinction in space.

Distinction appears to me to be similar to differrentiation.

Excellent point.

I feel we have to realize that space is 'duality' distinction already and is made before and differentiation is possible, because as I outlined above, the simplest shape (entity with dimension) requires three seperately defined (inter-defining) qualities.

The space preceding it is equally singular and dual because mind can not make definition of either state ... the mind requires three interactive qualities before it can 'see' a (dimensional) shape.

-1 0 1+ trinary not binary.

There does appear to be some fundamentally cosmic binary i.e. dualistic sets but there there may be as many, or more cosmic trinary sets.

Agree. It is not dualistic in the sence of 'two', nor is it a function of 'one'... it's an inevitable infinite and subjective state by virtue of it having no dimension at all.

I dunno. My cosmic heirarchy--- posted elsewhere --- has four distinct catagories at the top of the cosmic heirarchy but there are indeed a distinction in that three involve space and one does not.

That is two sets but not a balance set i.e. 3-1 ratio

1 non-space

3 space

So I dont think that is binary nor is it symmetrical dualty, tho two catagories.

Rybo the Rybot

P.S. Your signature =

I don't have a signature yet.

Some quite interesting work by a mad scientist.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DtUMMC6BMY0

[r6r6]

Gem]Ok... let me disect, because we often make models and say they mean 'this', but rarely do we investigate the process by which our mind conjures the model. It's an important area to consider because there isn't really a place where the mind becomes a entity which is entirely seperated from the universe, in that the perception of phenomena occurs to (the assumed entity) mind. First... we have to realize that all existence is validated by mindful realization of it, and without that, existence itself is quite irrelevent. Combining the facets above, we can only assume that what we have, is 'a perceived universe'.. ie it exists as a thought. Now, we of western mind already know everything is energy, but how we define energy (the ability to do work) is quite different to the oriental way of seeing it as Qi, Chi... The Life Force. In either sense... there are flows or forms energy... but in the absence of change (ie movement) there is no defining feature, but on the other hand there is no destruction nor creation of energy, only the changing form of the universe.

Hi Gem, I think you have some good thpoughts above, and maybe we can get back to those some time.

Now I get to the point where you have presented me whith a shape, which is a dimensional entity which has boundries within an infinite space.
Your model consists of the line, both concave and convex simultaneously.. The space we'll call 'outside' the curve is the reference which deems it convex and the space we'll call 'inside' the curve deems it concave, therefore, the shape 'curved line' an interaction between three defined components; 'inside' 'outside' and 'curved line'.

That is the basic idea, and for most part very good descirption, however, a little refiment of your latter for clarity i.e. in that all of the space you mention above is "outside" of the line.


By your "inside" space, that is outside the line, you mean the space that on the concave side, that is within and area defined by the curved line and an imaginary 2nd line that would connect the ends of the curved line.

By having the imaginary 2nd line we create 2D enclosure ergo a polygonal-like 2D enclsure that may be more correctly half curve and ahd half Euclidean polygon.


So your inside = space relationhsip to concave side of line, even tho there is no 2D enclosed area, that effectly would give us a truly "inside" space differrentiated from the outside space.

outside = space relationship to convex side of curved line,

curved line = an alledged something that occupies the infinite space.

If one component is removed from this group, leaving only two parts, the entire model collapses and there's just emptyness.

I would refine by stating that, the line has two apects rather than componets ergo we have the curved line componet and the embracing infinite space componet.

So now, you appear to suggest, a removal of "one component". Well if the infinite space is presumed to be empty/non-occupied from the get-go, as seems reasoble, logical and how i would conceptulaize it, then, what you really mean, is to remove the curved line, leaves only infinite, "empty" non-occupied space.

That appears to be a correct assesment by you, with my refinements above.

Totally Agree. The curved line is a by product of making a distinction in space. Excellent point.

Great! we appear to be congruent so far. Yes curved line in infinite empty/non-occupied space is a distinctiion/differrentiation, between a finite somehtingness/occupied space and a infinite nothingness/non-occupied space.

You have now begun to grasp my Rybonics view of "U"niverse, but more on that later perhaps.

I feel we have to realize that space is 'duality' distinction already and is made before and differentiation is possible, because as I outlined above, the simplest shape (entity with dimension) requires three seperately defined (inter-defining) qualities.

Gem, you do not state what distinction dualistic aspect of space is, prior to the line. Your starting to loose me here becuase no rationale is offered.

Then you go off on "entity with "dimension" so I assume your talking about the curved line without saying so. If your now including the line, then that is the first addendum to an infinite, noo-occupied/emptyness space.

And if we want to get back into the "componets" or aspects of the curved line only, then I can add more than just concave-convex i.e. there is also to terminal end points to the line.

The space preceding it is equally singular and dual because mind can not make definition of either state ... the mind requires three interactive qualities before it can 'see' a (dimensional) shape.

The infinite, empty/non-occupied space, preceding our concept of a line is single not dual, and now you appear to be flip-flopping back to that as being the case.

For the moment Gem, put aside your what is needed to "see" a dimension or shape etc......as that only adds convoluting confusion to our our pure concepts/mind/intellect of the space and the line.

So if you stick to just the concepts/mind/intellect of space and curved line, then I believe we have covered it fairly well above.

1) macro-micro infinite non-occupied/empty space has two directional aspects, ergo and amendment to my above, if we consider direction to be an aspect or characteristic or whateve that I may not have the appropriated label for,

2) a finite, occupie space of a curved line has two or three aspects/charactieristics, concave-convex, and two terminal end points.

So we have the more general duality of non-occupied and occupied space.

Then we have quasi-subcatagories of each more generalized catagoruy. imho

Agree. It is not dualistic in the sence of 'two', nor is it a function of 'one'... it's an inevitable infinite and subjective state by virtue of it having no dimension at all.

I think there is an initial twoness, as the two catagories we consider above, but again, the top of my cosmic heirarchy has at least 4 cataories split into 3-1 ratio set. More on that later perhaps.


Unfortunately Gem, I'm on dial-out and rarely have time to wait for Utuube vidies...

If yuu can summarize.....

Rybo the Rybot

[Gem]

Too bad, the guy on u-tube is a freak!

I'll type out his little blurb for your entertainment.

The apparent separation we see, is really a function of not experienceing the space between the objects. Now, in the room, we seem to be in free space, but there's magnetic feilds, RF fields... all happening in the field around me, but I'm not aware of it directly... so we perceive the space between things to be empty and don't necessarily see the relationship between me and the table or between me and the wall... but that relationship os there, because it's the space which defines matter, not matter that defines space. All matter emerges from the vacuum and retutns to the vacuum and when we start to experience that, become aware of that, we start to lose thatsense of separation. We start to feel that connection to all things... and I think that's the ultimate experience... which we describe as the sense of unity with all things. ~ Nassim Haramein

Originally Posted by rybo

Hi Gem, I think you have some good thpoughts above, and maybe we can get back to those some time.



That is the basic idea, and for most part very good descirption, however, a little refiment of your latter for clarity i.e. in that all of the space you mention above is "outside" of the line.


By your "inside" space, that is outside the line, you mean the space that on the concave side, that is within and area defined by the curved line and an imaginary 2nd line that would connect the ends of the curved line.

By having the imaginary 2nd line we create 2D enclosure ergo a polygonal-like 2D enclsure that may be more correctly half curve and ahd half Euclidean polygon.


So your inside = space relationhsip to concave side of line, even tho there is no 2D enclosed area, that effectly would give us a truly "inside" space differrentiated from the outside space.

outside = space relationship to convex side of curved line,

curved line = an alledged something that occupies the infinite space.



I would refine by stating that, the line has two apects rather than componets ergo we have the curved line componet and the embracing infinite space componet.

So now, you appear to suggest, a removal of "one component". Well if the infinite space is presumed to be empty/non-occupied from the get-go, as seems reasoble, logical and how i would conceptulaize it, then, what you really mean, is to remove the curved line, leaves only infinite, "empty" non-occupied space.

That appears to be a correct assesment by you, with my refinements above.




Great! we appear to be congruent so far. Yes curved line in infinite empty/non-occupied space is a distinctiion/differrentiation, between a finite somehtingness/occupied space and a infinite nothingness/non-occupied space.

You have now begun to grasp my Rybonics view of "U"niverse, but more on that later perhaps.




Gem, you do not state what distinction dualistic aspect of space is, prior to the line. Your starting to loose me here becuase no rationale is offered.

Then you go off on "entity with "dimension" so I assume your talking about the curved line without saying so. If your now including the line, then that is the first addendum to an infinite, noo-occupied/emptyness space.

And if we want to get back into the "componets" or aspects of the curved line only, then I can add more than just concave-convex i.e. there is also to terminal end points to the line.




The infinite, empty/non-occupied space, preceding our concept of a line is single not dual, and now you appear to be flip-flopping back to that as being the case.

For the moment Gem, put aside your what is needed to "see" a dimension or shape etc......as that only adds convoluting confusion to our our pure concepts/mind/intellect of the space and the line.

So if you stick to just the concepts/mind/intellect of space and curved line, then I believe we have covered it fairly well above.

1) macro-micro infinite non-occupied/empty space has two directional aspects, ergo and amendment to my above, if we consider direction to be an aspect or characteristic or whateve that I may not have the appropriated label for,

2) a finite, occupie space of a curved line has two or three aspects/charactieristics, concave-convex, and two terminal end points.

So we have the more general duality of non-occupied and occupied space.

Then we have quasi-subcatagories of each more generalized catagoruy. imho




I think there is an initial twoness, as the two catagories we consider above, but again, the top of my cosmic heirarchy has at least 4 cataories split into 3-1 ratio set. More on that later perhaps.


Unfortunately Gem, I'm on dial-out and rarely have time to wait for Utuube vidies...

If yuu can summarize.....

Rybo the Rybot

[r6r6]

Gem]Too bad, the guy on u-tube is a freak!

Oh Haramein, yeah I been to his sites some years back and did watch a little of Utube once. Wish was not on dial-out but I cant really afford teh $50. a month to get a higher speed out here in the boonies.

Occsionally I go to a nearbusiness and use there access but I disliek having to leave comfort of h-om-e/w-om-b/d-om-e

The apparent separation we see, is really a function of not experienceing the space between the objects. Now, in the room, we seem to be in free space, but there's magnetic feilds, RF fields... all happening in the field around me, but I'm not aware of it directly... so we perceive the space between things to be empty and don't necessarily see the relationship between me and the table or between me and the wall... but that relationship os there, because it's the space which defines matter, not matter that defines space.

Yeah, there was PBS American Masters some years ago on Richard Feynman who stated this and it was first time I saw anyone on tv metnions it.

Seemingly empty space is filled with stuff. He stated in that program the pit vipers see in the infra-red spectrum and I hadn't known that before.

As for space defining matter, I agree insofar as that space is defined as gravitational spacetime membrane--- aka nodal vertexial network/web ---that intefers with itself to create all fermionic matter particles and bosonic force particles.

All matter emerges from the vacuum and retutns to the vacuum and when we start to experience that, become aware of that, we start to lose thatsense of separation. We start to feel that connection to all things... and I think that's the ultimate experience... which we describe as the sense of unity with all things. ~ [i]Nassim Haramein

The so called vacuum is alledge to have virtual particles popping into and out of existence before we can directly detect them. However, some experiements indirectly infer/imply their existence.

That is all well and good but fairly far removed from my concerns, at least most of the time.

Now gravity is similar in that we hav not quantised nor do I think we ever will and it is debateble whether we will ever quantify gravity with gravitons, as Lee Smolin has predicted we will do using geometry.

However, I've posted one URL for years that does give some indirect inference/implciations that gravity is indeed a bosonic-like force via some distant quasars or whatever orbiting one another.

If interested i can find URL on other computer. So gravity for me is key significant player too all of the Universe and the many mysterious if not paradoxes.

There is also a 2nd experiement that is less conclusive and never been duplicated elsewhere, that drops some particles in a vacuum tube and these particles seem to fall then pause at differrent levels before falling the next level, and the scientist doing that experiment claim that this is in some ways similar to the first experiments to infer/imply that EMRadiation does come into discreet quanta.

So this falling pausing falling pause to them infers/imnplies gravitonic shells sort of like electron shells where the electrons rise or fall as the gain or release a photon.

By the way Gem I have a poem that uses the name "Gem"in it title at this URL. The poem/limerick as most of mine are, was written some years ago.

http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/sh...ad.php?t=36097

Rybo the Rybot

[Gem]

Originally Posted by rybo

Oh Haramein, yeah I been to his sites some years back and did watch a little of Utube once. Wish was not on dial-out but I cant really afford teh $50. a month to get a higher speed out here in the boonies.

Occsionally I go to a nearbusiness and use there access but I disliek having to leave comfort of h-om-e/w-om-b/d-om-e





Yeah, there was PBS American Masters some years ago on Richard Feynman who stated this and it was first time I saw anyone on tv metnions it.

Seemingly empty space is filled with stuff. He stated in that program the pit vipers see in the infra-red spectrum and I hadn't known that before.

As for space defining matter, I agree insofar as that space is defined as gravitational spacetime membrane--- aka nodal vertexial network/web ---that intefers with itself to create all fermionic matter particles and bosonic force particles.




The so called vacuum is alledge to have virtual particles popping into and out of existence before we can directly detect them. However, some experiements indirectly infer/imply their existence.

That is all well and good but fairly far removed from my concerns, at least most of the time.

Now gravity is similar in that we hav not quantised nor do I think we ever will and it is debateble whether we will ever quantify gravity with gravitons, as Lee Smolin has predicted we will do using geometry.

However, I've posted one URL for years that does give some indirect inference/implciations that gravity is indeed a bosonic-like force via some distant quasars or whatever orbiting one another.

If interested i can find URL on other computer. So gravity for me is key significant player too all of the Universe and the many mysterious if not paradoxes.

There is also a 2nd experiement that is less conclusive and never been duplicated elsewhere, that drops some particles in a vacuum tube and these particles seem to fall then pause at differrent levels before falling the next level, and the scientist doing that experiment claim that this is in some ways similar to the first experiments to infer/imply that EMRadiation does come into discreet quanta.

So this falling pausing falling pause to them infers/imnplies gravitonic shells sort of like electron shells where the electrons rise or fall as the gain or release a photon.

By the way Gem I have a poem that uses the name "Gem"in it title at this URL. The poem/limerick as most of mine are, was written some years ago.

http://www.spiritualforums.com/vb/showthread.php?t=36097

Rybo the Rybot

Damn computer is a nuisence.

(smashes computer)