/lit/ - Literature

You can't. Your entire nervous system is based on a dual organ. The left and right sides of tour brain reach an agreement through independent complementary processes.

>>13370838
What about AI.

If we can think of hyper-dimensions and imaginary numbers, why can't philosophy get past duality.

>>13370863
Most philosophers would say dualism is dead, at least substance dualism (property dualism is a whole another thing).

This is analytic cuckery tho, not my thing. Just be an idealist and deny matter LMAO

>>13370890
What about in metaphysics.

>>13370829
Well, there is an entire school of Hindu philosophy/metaphysics called 'non-dualism', you may want to start there

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advaita_Vedanta

>>13370838
This book was a lot more academically oriented than I was prepared for. I agree, if duality if fundamental to reality how to move beyond it and why?

>>13370955
Anything more recent?

>>13371008
Guenon's books on metaphysics

>>13370829
Holy Indifference towards evil. Rather than correcting evil, doing nothing except observe it. Judging it immaculately without reference to a self. Observe evil thoughts, desires arise in the self, see their basis, and watch them pass, and see they are not the self; observe the thoughts, desires to do good, and see their basis, and watch them pass, and see that they are not the self either.

>>13371137
I meant in a more general sense than just good/evil, which is just one kind of duality.

The problem is that once something exists, it implies its opposite.

By experiencing the non-dual firsthand by any means necessary.

>>13371202
I see, sorry. I will try again. Existence exists. How can it imply its opposite when the opposite it implies cannot itself exist? That implication would not be real, and we cannot experience it. So the problem, at least in that case, lies within our recognition of things that are implied to have a dual opposite by the fact of their being - we 'create' that duality by supposing its opposite, not observing it. Do we not relate things to each other by comparing behaviour? Would the answer to getting beyond duality be to simply see things precisely as they are within themselves without regard to things that are in 'apparent' contrast? 'Contrast' is surely a human recognition, and the relationship between two things that contrast we surely create meaning to.

>>13370829
Process-relational metaphysics, the problem of duality is caused by substance-primacy and is resolved by the interdependence of being and becoming as two perspectival reference frames of relational change, the nondual unity found in the evolutionary process of reality itself.

In other terms much of Western metaphysics is creationist and what is required is an evolutionary metaphysics, a cause which Whitehead greatly advanced.

You can't escape the duality of destructiveness towards life vs. the building up of life.

>>13371439
The same trend is noticeable in the scientific realm: research here is for its own sake far more than for the partial and fragmentary results it achieves; here we see an ever more rapid succession of unfounded theories and hypotheses, no sooner set up than crumbling to give way to others that will have an even shorter life— a veritable chaos amid which one would search in vain for anything definitive, unless it be a monstrous accumulation of facts and details incapable of proving or signifying anything. We refer here of course to speculative science, insofar as this still exists; in applied science there are on the contrary undeniable results, and this is easily understandable since these results bear directly on the domain of matter, the only domain in which modern man can boast any real superiority. It is therefore to be expected that discoveries, or rather mechanical and industrial inventions, will go on developing and multiplying more and more rapidly until the end of the present age; and who knows if, given the dangers of destruction they bear in themselves, they will not be one of the chief agents in the ultimate catastrophe, if things reach a point at which this cannot be averted?

Be that as it may, one has the general impression that, in the present state of things, there is no longer any stability; but while there are some who sense the danger and try to react to it, most of our contemporaries are quite at ease amid this confusion, in which they see a kind of exteriorized image of their own mentality. Indeed there is an exact correspondence between a world where everything seems to be in a state of mere ‘becoming’, leaving no place for the changeless and the permanent, and the state of mind of men who find all reality in this ‘becoming’, thus implicitly denying true knowledge as well as the object of that knowledge, namely transcendent and universal principles. One can go even further and say that it amounts to the negation of all real knowledge whatsoever, even of a relative order, since, as we have shown above, the relative is unintelligible and impossible without the absolute, the contingent without the necessary, change without the unchanging, and multiplicity without unity; ‘relativism’ is self-contradictory, for, in seeking to reduce everything to change, one logically arrives at a denial of the very existence of change; this was fundamentally the meaning of the famous arguments of Zeno of Elea.

>>13371544
However, we have no wish to exaggerate and must add that theories such as these are not exclusively encountered in modern times; examples are to be found in Greek philosophy also, the ‘universal flux’ of Heraclitus being the best known; indeed, it was this that led the school of Elea to combat his conceptions, as well as those of the atomists, by a sort of reductio ad absurdum. Even in India, something comparable can be found, though, of course, considered from a different point of view from that of philosophy, for Buddhism also developed a similar character, one of its essential theses being the ‘dissolubility of all things ’. These theories, however, were then no more than exceptions, and such revolts against the traditional outlook, which may well have occurred from time to time throughout the whole of the Kali-Yuga, were, when all is said and done, without wider influence; what is new is the general acceptance of such conceptions that we see in the West today.

It should be noted too that under the influence of the very recent idea of ‘progress’, ‘philosophies of becoming’ have, in modern times, taken on a special form that theories of the same type never had among the ancients: this form, although it may have multiple varieties, can be covered in general by the name ‘evolutionism’. We need not repeat here what we have already said elsewhere on this subject; we will merely recall the point that any conception allowing for nothing other than ‘becoming’ is thereby necessarily a ‘naturalistic’ conception, and, as such, implies a formal denial of whatever lies beyond nature, in other words the realm of metaphysics— which is the realm of immutable and eternal principles. We may point out also, in speaking of these anti-metaphysical theories, that the Bergonian idea of pure duration’ corresponds exactly with that dispersion in instantaneity to which we alluded above; a pretended intuition modeled on the ceaseless flux of the things of the senses, far from being able to serve as an instrument for obtaining true knowledge, represents in reality the dissolution of all possible knowledge.

>>13371550
This leads us to repeat an essential point on which not the slightist ambiguity must be allowed to persist: intellectual intuition, by which alone metaphysical knowledge is to be obtained, has absolutely nothing in common with this other ‘intuition’ of which certain contemporary philosophers speak: the latter pertains to the sensible realm and in fact is sub-rational, whereas the former, which is pure intelligence, is on the contrary supra-rational. But the moderns, knowing nothing higher than reason in the order of intelligence, do not even conceive of the possibility of intellectual intuition, whereas the doctrines of the ancient world and of the Middle Ages, even when they were no more than philosophical in character, and therefore incapable of effectively calling this intuition into play, nevertheless explicitly recognized its existence and its supremacy over all the other faculties. This is why there was no rationalism before Descartes, for rationalism is a specifically modern phenomenon, one that is closely connected with individualism, being nothing other than the negation of any faculty of a supra- individual order. As long as Westerners persist in ignoring or denying intellectual intuition, they can have no tradition in the true sense of the word, nor can they reach any understanding with the authentic representatives of the Eastern civilizations, in which everything, so to speak, derives from this intuition, which is immutable and infallible in itself, and the only starting-point for any development in conformity with traditional norms.

>>13371439
>Just have faith lol

>>13371202
>The problem is that once something exists, it implies its opposite.
In both Advaita Vedanta and Madhyamaka Buddhism they write about X being beyond both existence and non-existence, but in different ways. For Advaita, Brahman (God) as the non-dual substratum of infinite pure consciousness precedes and is beyond the categories of existence and non-existence. Existence according to them just referring to the manifestation of a set of the infinite possibilities retained virtually in the unmanifest; Brahman transcending and containing within Itself both. According to the Madhyamakists everything is devoid or empty of inherent existence, and at the same time there is not a real difference between samsara and nirvana, according to them nirvana/liberation/the true nature of things is beyond existence and non-existence in the sense that it has no fundamental and inherent existence itself but is not non-existent insofar as it is the true nature of things and is capable of being realized and directly experienced.

Fredric Jameson's dialectics

>>13370829

By defining yourself not in opposition to something, but by defining yourself in relations to everything else.

>>13371948
nonsense.

>>13370829
Derrida

>>13371930

>>13370838
Yes and sure the left brain is the interpreter and all that but stil while that dualism is true there are other dualisms that aren't

>>13370829
Enneagram

>>13372431
Take your meds.

Open to the "E" section of the dictionary.

>>13371008
Try Alan Watts