How To View Duality?

my thoughts are that the concept of "duality" is inadequate in describing what's going on. the fact that there are two parts to -something- is usually irrelevant. sometimes they're in conflict, as they are usually thought of in the west, but usually they are not. and sometimes the differing aspects are mere illusions.

as for the mind being seperate from the body, there is plenty of scientific evidence supporting the theory that the "mind" is simply a function of the brain. for instance, there have been groundbreaking studies essentially demonstrating that the decision to act is made before you consciously think "i am going to do this." nervous systems aren't the most efficient way of relaying information. our computers are much faster. but still, the impulses are rather slow compared to electricity through wires and so on. when you reach out to pick up a cup, the signals have to operate your fingers, your wrist, your muscles all through your arm, and so on. these signals got into the arm through the spinal cord, which goes up your neck into your brain, where the signals originated. this takes a lot longer than deciding to pick up the cup.

yet the very instant your hand starts to move forward may be when you "decide" to pick up the cup, if you are acting spontaneously. in this case, the signals for the motor function were sent out a bit before the decision making.

further, while lateralization of brain function is primarily a bogus idea, it is very true that certain areas of the brain are specialized for certain tasks, and damage to certain structures will alter somebody's mental abilities and characteristics in a relatively predictable way. this would NOT be the case if the mind were not simply a function of the brain, if it were some intangible and nonphysical portion of the human.

and take stream of consciousness. of course you can direct your thoughts, but people generally don't do this consistantly. much of the time you're "thinking," you are actually just "listening" to the voice in your head.

i'm not saying its impossible that the mind exists, i'm only saying that there is much scientific evidence against it, or at least against the idea of it existing in the way it's traditionally thought to exist.

the only reason people are defiant of this suggestion if because they like to maintain the myth of free will and control over their own lives, and feel that the elimination of the mind paradigm will somehow rob them of any control.

 

Yes, there is evidence, evidence that is considered evidence by...!!!...by what?

Now we're getting somewhere.

 

the various scientific disciplines, particularly those related to neuroscience.

but at what cost? seriously, at what cost?

 

Another view of duality would be the unmanifested vs. the manifested. The unmanifested being the void or unknown out of which creation comes and where it will return.

 

To me, this is just mind games and the twisting of words.
We can say that the "void" is unmanifest, as opposed to our "manifested" reality, but then all we have done is define the void as opposition to existence, and thus compartmentalized it as "nothing", which is then "something" in and of itself. If we can create a distinction, then we really aren't thinking of nothing after all, and since the notion of non-existence depends on existence anyways, the void is kind of useless to me. Unless I'm currently delving into the world of opiates, and then it is home sweet home.
But I suppose mind games is what duality is all about, after all.

 

Another way to look at it would be present vs. future. What exists vs. what will exist. What I am vs. what I will be.

 

Still the same thing. As far as I'm concered, there is no future in regards to what I will be, because if I am something different than what I am now, then it is illusory, since it is not occuring at all points in time, and since I am not that NOW.

 

So you believe you are (intelect+physical) which exists NOW. If you believe in God the future=void, past=physical and the present is where they merge with intent. On a side note in the Bible the word Amen means the hidden that is becoming physical and is another name for Christ in Revelations.

 

both illusions.

future = illusion
past = illusion

 

Duality = illusion.......or does it? Existence is constant change. Without opposites there can be no change. Take music for example. It can only exist if there are both notes and spaces. Imagine waking up in an infinite vacuum of dark space. Can nothingness exist? And if it does it must be an opposite.

Edit; If existence is infinite then everything must exist. So the opposition club is right.

 

In most contexts, the concept of duality is flawed. There is an incredible amount of interacting factors. The world is not bipolar.

 

I'm-a say Ultimatum. Opposition, to me, implies the possibility of neutrality, and I don't believe that neutrality is possible.

 

As I understood it, the present is also an illusion, if the passage of time is simply our way of interpreting a continuum. The now would be at once eternal and meaningless - it is always now now, but at the same time, if now is always, what is being described is not what we understand the word to mean.

 

I think existence is totally bipolar. You have earth teaming with life but at the same time it's floating in an infinite sea of dead space. Then you have complete chaos at the subatomic level while at larger scales it is so ordered simple equations like E=mc2 are used to explain it's nature. Finally, you have the big bang with the entire universe condensed to the size of a pea.

 

While I probably agree with this one in a lot of ways, I think that an opposition doesn't necessarily have to be another force. The opposite of a certain type of force could be the absence of force, which is similar to #3 - however there are "bad" forces, or such forces that we perceive to be negative.

I voted this, because some things DON'T have a clear or distinct opposite - or even a singular opposite. However, I also believe in these situations that they aren't as directly opposite. Think of it as being two angles to make up a 180 degree half - neither of them bisect the other half evenly.

Like I said, there can be opposites in the form of absences, but I don't think any one force can be deemed to be evil or bad. Everything is in existence for a purpose - whether we can see it ourselves or not. It is the human ego that labels such things as good or bad.

 

Black can be perceived as black without the existence of white, though. If it is all the colors in one, then it is inherently different than each of the individual colors.

 

We still perceive white as a color though, so what background is white laying on?

 

Can you explain? Where would existence be if not in the present? Maybe you mean time doesn't exist