Average Thread

What is it that so draws us towards dualistic thinking?

Are dualistic phases so sharp, so bright, that they perceptually blind us from other phases or is it our own hearts that draw us towards them?

Never mind the fact that these dualities, these two phases, are very often just two of many phases within continuums within spectra within continuums within ad infinitum -- never mind all that, and lets just focus in on "the other" phase...

The "average" phase:

We have tall, short, and average height. Where is the word for average height?
We have fat, skinny, and average build. Where is the word for average build?
We have ugly, beautiful, and average looking. Where is the word for average looking?

Why are all the averages just average? What is going on?

What is it about dualistic phases, opposing phases, that creates so much of a blind spot for the averages?

Thoughts?

a reply to: Bleeeeep

Found it interesting that this thread shortly preceeded your thread in the same forum:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

...and shades of grey

a reply to: Bleeeeep

Part of the duality building blocks is the duality because all created matter is formed by vibration... a frequency that scales on a duality train.

The average stems from Ohm's Law... apply a set resistance to a set source voltage to alter the capacitance and the output inertia from peak highs and lows can and should be averaged.

Now if you mean the averages... as in a person that thrives in a labeled society, the Ohm's Law still applies. The more resistance that keeps adding up, it only breeds limits and less chance of enlightenment.

a reply to: CreationBro

Had I seen his thread I probably wouldn't have posted this so soon afterwards, but I guess it is weird that we were thinking of the same topic around the same time.

What do you mean by shades of grey? Situation unclear?

a reply to: ttobban

Our natural way of thinking is a reflection of physical constraints?

The psychological dimension mirrors the physical dimensions?

What then of other ways of thinking? People who see other phases and call those phases the boundaries, for example? The proverbial 3rd dimension?

a reply to: Bleeeeep

I wouldn't say our natural way of thinking is restrictive... instead the constraints are formed by environmental adaptations. Flouride is the best example I can think of... such a huge resistance to adapting.

The coding DNA receives upon birth, passed from parent to birth, is a structured code of both parents (averaged) and is even slightly tweaked based on the environments the parents live through. Mental disorders can certainly be of gene trait origins, the the 2 worlds you mention mingle more then we may like to admit.

Sorry, don't delve into the world of forced thinking on others. All I could advise is for all to focus on the connection to source... wherever most easily found.

The way I see it... frequency limits occur in the 3rd dimension, and just because they can't be seen does not mean that higher frequencies don't consume our surroundings.

a reply to: ttobban

Not restricted? What's a word for behavior that is neither good nor bad? Not how you feel about it, but the behavior itself, what's that called when you tell a child, "sure, you can do that, it's ______."

There's not even a word that is really meant for it - it's just "whatever."

No one even cares about the average. It's weird, man, it's weird.

"Shades of grey."

a reply to: Bleeeeep

Shades of grey, sure... but the shades of grey vary based on the averaged placement of blacks and whites.

If people didn't care for average so much, so many would not take anti depressants... which essentially just remove the highs and lows of emotion... to create a flat average.

By no means am I saying dwell on or live within average, but it should be included in analysis as one passes through the frequencies of life. Part of re balancing our own Chi is due to finding light in areas that may be pulling duality/average off course a bit. Not recognizing average simply creates more imbalance/resistance. Which just snowballs naturally into the aspects Ohm's Law again.

The heart beats off of free energy principals based on the harmony/sequence of 7 muscles. Alter the average inertia of that energy outside the golden ratio, and disease sets in... physical and non physical energy fluctuations can and do alter the golden ratio/balance of the heartbeat. Stress is a huge negative aspect of the hearts cohesive beating... just like clogged arteries is... and maybe even the genetic predisposition to carry such traits in life.

a reply to: ttobban

So then which is the correct perspective?

Is the duality a combination of the black and white or is the black and white a division of the duality?


e.g. What color is a rainbow? Does a Christian rightly divide the Word or does he rightly combine it?

a reply to: Bleeeeep

The problem with duality: is what to do with the other stuff?

Funny that there are two threads about duality posted in such a relatively short time.
Posting this also in the other one because: duality.

a reply to: Nothin

That's funny, and kind of my point: there's other stuff, so why do we focus so much on dualism?

I mean, whether "the other stuff" is ultimately a combination of infinite things or a division of something infinite, the other things
for sure exist, yet our "natural minds" seem to point us towards dualistic thinking, and I want to know why.

Any ideas?

a reply to: Bleeeeep

Have you read Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance
by Robert M. Pirsig?

He literally travels in depth about Quality and the divisions of Classical
and Romantic Concepts, all the while confronting his long dead personality
that was treated with 800 mills of amperage for durations of 0.5 to 1.5 seconds
to his cerebral nodes on 28 consecutive occasions.
The process was known as "Annihilation ECS".

I recommend this difficult read of an old bestseller to you and others around here.
The book is circa 1974 and was a national best seller. It is not a fringe pseudo science
conspiracy book. In fact , it was required reading in one of my old college courses.
Be warned...It is a philosophical read not a Carl Hiassen humorous skip to my loo.
I do love Hiassen's stuff though. HooHaa

a reply to: Bleeeeep

His thread titled black and white. Your thread mentions averages. whats the average or middle of black and white? When you mix em you get grey

I see upon reading the rest of your conversation you and ttoban elaborated on his concept. Nice.

Makes me think of matter...grey matter. Mmmm...brains. Lol

originally posted by: Bleeeeep
a reply to: Nothin

That's funny, and kind of my point: there's other stuff, so why do we focus so much on dualism?

I mean, whether "the other stuff" is ultimately a combination of infinite things or a division of something infinite, the other things
for sure exist, yet our "natural minds" seem to point us towards dualistic thinking, and I want to know why.

Any ideas?

I call it "absolutism" or black and white thinking vs. "multiperceptualism" or the grey area where there are the black and white as well as an infinite amount of other points that often have elements of the black and white.

I developed this "awareness" starting around 2008. Dunno how useful it is, but i constantly find what seem like hard headed and fallacious views in other's expressions due to their mind set being of an "absolutist". Named examples are people stating one opinion and over time, they end up with entirely different mind set. Time plays a factor.

Sure, absolutism definitely has its usefulness, but uncertainty is an important factor imho, a factor that a lot of people overlook. Youll see it in how some assert opinions as if they are divine word.

I recognize that this entire post in and of itself sounds as such, so to clarify, i recognize my points here could be non useful or inaccurate to some degree, as i suppose is meant. However, the very nature of this entire post and concepts are kind of paradoxical.

I love paradoxes...or pair of ducks

a reply to: Bleeeeep

Yes we were more than likely writting these threads in the same moments! The universe delivers one way or another delivers the same message in a multitude of ways.

a reply to: Wildmanimal

I read a summary of it just now. Do you remember if it gives a detailed explanation as to what he thought was behind our dualistic thinking, why dualism was a "gumption trap", and whether or not, in his practice of "motorcycle maintenance", he actually refrained from dualistic thinking?

Was the core principle something like "if you view things as arising from spectral "Qualities", you will see that objects are merely spectrograms?" Sort of like a Buddhist midway through converting to Christianity?

What was the source of "Quality" and how did he get around good/bad? Did he say? Was bad simply a poor quality good?

originally posted by: Bleeeeep
a reply to: Nothin

That's funny, and kind of my point: there's other stuff, so why do we focus so much on dualism?

I mean, whether "the other stuff" is ultimately a combination of infinite things or a division of something infinite, the other things
for sure exist, yet our "natural minds" seem to point us towards dualistic thinking, and I want to know why.

Any ideas?

Well then let's look at what is this "natural mind" you speak of.
It probably wouldn't be the blissful existence of the newborn child, who apparently doesn't perceive dualism.

Is it what we learn after, as the intellect develops? Purely sociocultural?
How do we become individuals?

Or is it predestined for all humans to develop this point-of-view?
Don't have any answers. Just like the unknowing feeling of questions.

a reply to: Bleeeeep

Yes , If I remember correctly , that division is mentioned.
Something to do with the word "techne" which originally
meant "art" to the ancient Greeks. Apparently(according
to this source), in the Greek mind, art and "manufacture"
were the same thing. So, they never developed two
separate words to describe this division or Dualism.

One can infer that this division between the Objective/Subjective,
Body/Spirit, Classical/Romantic concepts
were born at a later date according to western records.
However, this "dualism" of thought is in my opinion far older
than what I have mentioned here.
From what I can gather, "dualism" is a direct "awareness" response
to the environment/world space interaction that the senses of a living
being experience.

For instance, if an "aware being" lived on a planet that had two suns
and was moonless, creating the conditions of "always daytime"
and "always eventide", a duality of interpretation might not exist.
This is hypothetical of course, as I am taking for granted that
the "aware being" has the same senses that the ancient Greeks had.
And So Forth.

a reply to: CreationBro

absolutist (noun): an impressionable loudmouth;

I'm sure I've fit that description before. lol

However, the very nature of this entire post and concepts are kind of paradoxical.

I love paradoxes...or pair of ducks

I don't think that what you said was a paradox but...

ProTip: Whenever you see a paradox you should try to figure it out - solving them is very revealing of the nature of reality. (Hints this thread and me trying to figure out why infinity is being measured out by a dualistic kind of thinking.)

a reply to: Bleeeeep

By the way, the "gumption" trap you mention
is not directly related to your current view of
duality.
So, stay focused,bag the cliff notes, and read the book.
It is for your own good.
Take the time and gel with doing it right.
That is Quality.

Best to you