Why Good and Bad Can't Really Exist

Guys, please understand that every human efforts have one objective only: pursue happiness and avoid unhappiness.
Since happiness is the good feelings and unhappiness is the bad feelings, tell me: how is this discussion help us feel good (be happy).
Not judging as good or bad produces good feelings?
Or being conscious that the moment contains love (which is good) produces eternal happiness?
Every moment of your life can be lived with a "love life no matter what" mindset.
This is the most productive mindset i know.
According to this mindset, if i love life no matter what, i will always be patient with the world and the people. Everything is in its right place, everything is evolving, we contribute, we live, we experience, we learn, but above all, we love all there is.
We love no matter what happens. Our verdict is love.
Irrational? Maybe. I prefer happiness than the tyranny of the rational mind.

good and bad are only what you make them out to be based on individual experiences

positive and negative are a thing of the universe

we can only hope that as a people we can promote what is the right thing to do

and promote a positive existence in this world that we inhabit

so that positive and said "good" things can happen more and more often

Originally posted by sinohptik
Believe me, i know the feeling

As a previous teacher of non-duality i understand what you are going through. You can believe that or not. Though, really, the ironic part is that "non-duality" practiced by a dualistic system (the human body) ends up being dualistic by its nature. "No, its not that, its this." Even the very idea of non-duality is dualistic by its very premise.

I'm actually constantly aware of this every time I post, and it makes me feel like a hypocrite, but at the same time, the person I was arguing with is not going to call me on this when the concept of non-duality is not coming through in the first place.

I wish I were better with words on this subject, but even words themselves, in their definitions, must be more or less defined as "this" and so by relation, "not all of that." So by even using words I am in a sense acknowledging duality, yet how can the idea be expressed without words? We need a Zen monk don't we?

But my point is that it still that it is possible to transcend duality, and that this is even a worthy way of thinking, to at least try out and explore, even though it's nearly impossible to escape in Western society.

I appreciate you responding to me here though. I really do. Just to come across someone else coming from a similar place, so to speak, is refreshing. I get frustrated trying to put something into words that by its very nature truly denies them.

Why have you chosen two of those colors as less worthy than others? It seems by thinking that things are not "those things" that we are introducing duality ourselves. Why are the peak and valley of the wave any different from every other piece on it? Why do you view such things as more/less valid?

I don't really assign them any value of "worthiness" at all in that respect, but it's a convenient way of expressing an idea that automatically has more social relevance than, say, blue and red, you know? This goes back to what I mean about words themselves defying true non-duality. I realize I'm trying to dig myself out of a hole with a shovel, but I know it can be done, because I was first introduced to all of these concepts through writing (which was much more eloquent than my own). Maybe you just have to try to dig out sideways and up, more or less, and I'm struggling with that part.

From the perspective that is being put forth, such responses are truly missing the mark... They are still dealing with vast amounts of subjectivity viewed as objectivity. When we remove the duality from that, is when we truly start to grow

I'm all open to suggestions if you know of better techniques or ways of explaining what I'm talking about, believe me. Just show me the way. Even growing, as opposed to not growing, is a form of duality. There appears to be no trivial conundrum here.

If you don't think so then just look for a scientific definition or evidence/proof of what is "really" "good" and "bad." There is obviously no such thing, and the very idea is absurd.

To you, perhaps, but your viewpoint does not apply beyond your own body. The belief system you have in place relegates "good and bad" or the peak/valley of the wave, to be inconsequential because there are also other parts on the wave.

I don't even see "good" and "bad" as peaks of any wave. A wave is one thing, that can be even mathematically defined as a single function. This is what I want someone to do for "good" or "bad." If "good" and "bad" are as real as a wave (which is itself a concept), then they can be defined just as rigorously, and objectively. But of course this is not the case. If we entertain the concepts of objectivity and science at all, then no, there is no technical definition of "good" or "bad." It's always completely subjective and this is my point.

i used the analogy before, but depending on ones definition of "good," then it most certainly is applicable scientifically.

Depending on one's definition? This is the problem. I'm not saying the concept of "good" can't be forced into some use after it's already been defined. I'm saying there is no scientific/objective/logical way to define "good" or "bad" in the first place. Otherwise laws and government would be a matter of science and we would not need politicians, would we? It would be obvious what the "right" thing to do would be, in every case, because it would be a science. This again this is not the case.

If one was at point A, and wanted to get to point B, would they go to point C? Now, there will be something to learn in all, undoubtedly, but if we want to get to point B, the successful way, or "good" way, to do so is not by going in the opposite direction. If most plants wish to thrive, they must grow in light. It doesnt mean the "bad" is to be avoided as per typical response, far from it, it is just in realizing that if we want to move our arm, we should not move our leg.

Everything you reference here can be thoroughly described without ever having to introduce the words "good" or "bad" or anything equivalent. For example we could just say that the most direct route between two points, ie the shortest distance (something measurable) is a straight line. If you want to take another route, it is simply not the most direct route. When you introduce "good" and "bad" into all of this you are bringing something else to the discussion that has to do with an individual's subjective perspective, and nothing to do with the facts at hand (shortest measurable distances, etc.). I do not see what use is in this, to judge the circumstances on top of whatever purely observable facts may be gathered. When you take the extra step to judge the information you are describing an internal process rather than anything truly external about the routes you are describing.

Now, as far as applying such things directly to science, the same thing can be said. If one wanted to observe the patterns in say, the LHC, they would do "well" to observe the LHC in some respect. There are "good," or "proper/successful," ways of carrying out pattern recognition and observation, and there are "bad," or "improper/faulty" ways as well. The more we are involved our mind exclusively, the further into the latter we grow.

What the LHC is designed to do can also be described without ever having to defer to judgmental words. Electronics engineering was my major in college, and none of the formulas I ever had to learn had any variables for "good" or "bad" in them. If something blows up and catches on fire, that's usually not the desired result. However this can all be explained mathematically, again without having to defer to judgments. Desire is a direct result of our personal wills, our perspectives. Maybe it is our will that something catch on fire and blow up, for military purposes for example. Physics does not differentiate between a "good" or "bad" result. Physics carries it all out irregardless, because the "external" reality does not judge like we do. The judging of "good" and "bad" is to do with internal processes that are purely subjective.

hmm, so ill assume my words will be transferred into how you see it, so perhaps it will not be communicated "well." Perhaps all of this stems from my idea that the material universe is undeniably dualistic.

Duality definitely appears to exist, even in the "objective" sense. That's different from saying that it objectively makes sense as the one and only way of viewing the world, though. Non-duality is an equal, if not more-encompassing perspective. The way I figure, duality is the perfect example of what happens when you take the original unity (unified field, universal consciousness, God, or whatever you like) and split it into infinities of seemingly separate things. The unity is still there but it is not always recognized. The reason for this thread is to try to remind people that there is a unity that is not recognized as often as it could be. And what's more than that, there is no logical reason to favor a dualistic approach to a non-dualistic approach, or to favor them over any other approaches that we can possibly imagine. I am not even saying duality is "bad" because that would obviously defeat my own point. I am simply saying that these are all equally valid perspectives, and they are a matter of perspective, and that's it. They are not actual facts, of course, and there are no universal definitions for "good" or "bad" because most everyone has different opinions of what is right or wrong on a myriad of issues, from wars to laws to drug use, etc. etc. etc.

In my context, that does not mean black/white, it means that the material universe is based on cycles, which are themselves based in duality. There is no part of the wave to deny or confirm as being different from the rest of the wave, however even as being parts of the same thing, they can have separate attributes (night/day as well as me/you).

It's interesting you mention this. I agree "day" and "night" are definitely distinguishable, and thus the different words in our language for them. However the light is in-between at dawn and dusk. There is still a gradient, even many shades between night and dusk, etc. We often think a day is divided into two parts, day and night, but this is really just for convenience too. Even me and you, as being separate entities, this is really just for our own convenience, and it is very convenient for both of us! Otherwise we would be all confused. But from a more unusual (but no less valid) perspective, we could be seen as parts of a single larger entity interacting with itself through conversation, just as two otherwise-separate brain cells communicate with each other in the larger context of the brain, which we also often think of as a single entity, rather than the billions of cells which it also is. So is a brain one thing, or billions of things? We can look at it as either, and neither perspective, as far as I can see, is any more justified than the other. It both acts as a single entity, and as billions of separate cells. In the same way, is humanity (including you and me) a single thing, or billions of people? Linguistically it's treated as both (ie humanity/mankind is a singular word, not plural). All of these distinctions are really arbitrary, and ultimately the entire universe is inter-related with itself! I'm only trying to remind of that larger context into which all of this fits, when it is not broken down into parts.

It is the extremes, or peaks, that frequently manifest in the patterns that we can utilize and apply in the "real world."

I have no disagreement there. Only the simultaneous realization that, by our own standards of "formal logic" or "science," our very words and language often make arbitrary and even contradictory distinctions that are not rigorously defined or supported by facts. They are simply perspectives that arise out of a common convenience, which is fine, but still, is not the same as our other standards of "logic," "science," etc. I enjoy formal logic as a tool, and this tool says that looking at a day as peaks of light&dark, or a single cycle, are equally valid expressions. Or looking at a brain as a single entity, or billions of cells, are also equally valid expressions. This is what I mean by apparent contradictions in language that have nothing to do with formal logic. It comes down to purely a subjective call.

That was my own journey through this, years ago, and it was through the "extremes," or the black/white/peak/valley that i realized the movement of the physical universe. Do note, i do not believe all of our "being" resides in this duality, as i have mentioned several times. i cant go into specifics on the scientific side, but pattern/cycle recognition, frequently by the extremes first, is the very basis for science.

I also agree with all of this. Science is truly like a snake that eats its own tail. Godel's incompleteness theorem is an all-time favorite of mine. You know, the "this theorem is not a theorem" statement that turned mathematics on its head in the 1930s, and to this very day has not been "solved."

It is the extremes though, that provide us with the convenience of actually making distinctions in the physical world, and providing us with duality. I have no disagreement there, or with the idea that parts of us (the "core" of our existence as sentient beings even, yes?) resides in non-duality, or singularity.

Basically in the context of all you have said, the difference is that I'm just pointing "up," or "out there," to the fact that we are still integrally part of something larger, called the universe, and it is a unity. Seeing it as a unity, or seeing it as an infinitude of "different things," are both arbitrary perspectives. Which one proves to be the more interesting one to contemplate, is up to the individual.

Originally posted by bsbray11
I wish I were better with words on this subject, but even words themselves, in their definitions, must be more or less defined as "this" and so by relation, "not all of that." So by even using words I am in a sense acknowledging duality, yet how can the idea be expressed without words? We need a Zen monk don't we?

i take that as a tongue in cheek comment, as anyone who claims to practice zen is deceiving themselves and others! i assume that is the context under which it was delivered, at least

But my point is that it still that it is possible to transcend duality, and that this is even a worthy way of thinking, to at least try out and explore, even though it's nearly impossible to escape in Western society.

I appreciate you responding to me here though. I really do. Just to come across someone else coming from a similar place, so to speak, is refreshing. I get frustrated trying to put something into words that by its very nature truly denies them.

i agree about the "transcending." As i stated, i do not feel our "body" is entirely represented by the physical form. The physical form, while relegated to duality by its very nature, is seen more as a tool with which to create waves. As i see it, maybe transcend isnt quite the right word, but more observance. Such experiential motions exist always, though perhaps our perspective does not include them. i consider the process to be little more than realizing what was already there all along. To truly approach nonduality, we must not do it through dualistic systems.

i saw where the conversation was going, and i wanted to share a viewpoint that has actually put time into understanding such things. We can explore the subject together, through how each of us sees it. There is always something to learn!

I don't really assign them any value of "worthiness" at all in that respect, but it's a convenient way of expressing an idea that automatically has more social relevance than, say, blue and red, you know? This goes back to what I mean about words themselves defying true non-duality. I realize I'm trying to dig myself out of a hole with a shovel, but I know it can be done, because I was first introduced to all of these concepts through writing (which was much more eloquent than my own). Maybe you just have to try to dig out sideways and up, more or less, and I'm struggling with that part.

The true understanding of such things is experiential in nature. The words used are not so relevant, as they are all limited and little more than fingers pointing at the moon. So, the trick is not so much summing up how "i" see it, but putting it into words that another perspective can use to find such things for themselves.

I'm all open to suggestions if you know of better techniques or ways of explaining what I'm talking about, believe me. Just show me the way. Even growing, as opposed to not growing, is a form of duality. There appears to be no trivial conundrum here.

As i see it, the material universe is relegated to duality. There are certain laws and balances that exist, as well as growth. However, this is just one universe amongst many, some intertwining. The "realm" that contains our spirit, what i feel is an electromagnetic body, is a universe that exists alongside the material one, if not others. To realize this state, one must be able to get beyond dualistic processes, and the non-dualistic experience will be a result from that activity. Words are part of the material universe, so they themselves can not transcend duality, as they reside fully in it.

I don't even see "good" and "bad" as peaks of any wave. A wave is one thing, that can be even mathematically defined as a single function. This is what I want someone to do for "good" or "bad." If "good" and "bad" are as real as a wave (which is itself a concept), then they can be defined just as rigorously, and objectively. But of course this is not the case. If we entertain the concepts of objectivity and science at all, then no, there is no technical definition of "good" or "bad." It's always completely subjective and this is my point.

Well, any words we use will be completely subjective, though im not sure that designates that they lose meaning or existence. While there is no technical definition, the concepts are relatively clear. The words themselves, like math, are just representations of systems that already exist all around us. The good/bad dichotomy is the one most look at when understanding non-duality, though it is only one amongst many. If the material universe has no duality, then good and bad, as concepts, do not exist. However, if the material universe is dualistic and cyclical, then the concept of duality would be applicable. It should be noted, i view all dualistic systems to have wave structures. Meaning, that good/bad would inevitably be included in that. The idea of objectivity over-riding subjectivity is perhaps an example of duality, with concepts of good and bad, to you? Are you focusing solely on the concepts of good/bad or on duality in general? As i see good/bad are representative of the underlying system.

Do you view objectivity to be the sole way of understanding the universe?

Everything you reference here can be thoroughly described without ever having to introduce the words "good" or "bad" or anything equivalent. For example we could just say that the most direct route between two points, ie the shortest distance (something measurable) is a straight line. If you want to take another route, it is simply not the most direct route. When you introduce "good" and "bad" into all of this you are bringing something else to the discussion that has to do with an individual's subjective perspective, and nothing to do with the facts at hand (shortest measurable distances, etc.). I do not see what use is in this, to judge the circumstances on top of whatever purely observable facts may be gathered. When you take the extra step to judge the information you are describing an internal process rather than anything truly external about the routes you are describing.

i agree that we dont need to introduce any specific words. In truth, we could use brazzlegrork/nimplynoof as identifiers of the underlying dualistic system. As you say, growth itself is indicative of duality. Here we run into the inevitable subjectivity of things as i am trying to discuss the underlying base system of duality, and you are discussing a specific context. Do you understand what i mean by that? Hard to put into words without using many of them The concept of good/bad does not need to involve any positive or negative judgment whatsoever. In doing so, we intentionally interject duality. Lets use different words to explore the dualistic concept. Since, if one dualistic concept is negated because of omnipresent non-duality, then all will be. Lets instead use successful/unsuccessful, because good and bad tend to have a lot of personal baggage that can be hard to see through. If you change that around in the science examples i give, perhaps the concept i am attempting to relay will be a little more clear, because in this arena, context is not necessarily important. Meaning, that good/bad are human understandings and representations of the underlying cyclical system.

Duality definitely appears to exist, even in the "objective" sense.

Non-duality may only be a more encompassing system simply because it is the nature of the "container," or our whole body. Interestingly, it may be that beyond that container things return to duality, and back and forth.

I'm only trying to remind of that larger context into which all of this fits, when it is not broken down into parts.

Interesting, isnt it, how even at the edges of our perspective, things merge into one "thing?" When most try to approach "oneness," they tend to try to cram everything into their perspective, when it is more understanding ones place and part here.

I enjoy formal logic as a tool, and this tool says that looking at a day as peaks of light&dark, or a single cycle, are equally valid expressions.

Indeed, however, perhaps they need not be separate views either. One could simply see it as one cycle, that has different peaks depending on context.

I also agree with all of this. Science is truly like a snake that eats its own tail. Godel's incompleteness theorem is an all-time favorite of mine. You know, the "this theorem is not a theorem" statement that turned mathematics on its head in the 1930s, and to this very day has not been "solved."

i think it is the mystery of science that caused me to actually go into the field. Little did i know at the time that the same was simply not true for so many others, they had seemed to already have figured everything out.. Though, there will be discoveries on the horizon that will force them to take note

It is the extremes though, that provide us with the convenience of actually making distinctions in the physical world, and providing us with duality. I have no disagreement there, or with the idea that parts of us (the "core" of our existence as sentient beings even, yes?) resides in non-duality, or singularity.

It is off topic, but you may be interested in some of my other posts on the actual physical composition and interactions of such things. Honestly, i am not too interested in speaking about duality specifically, more speaking with those who have an interest in it, if that makes sense

Basically in the context of all you have said, the difference is that I'm just pointing "up," or "out there," to the fact that we are still integrally part of something larger, called the universe, and it is a unity. Seeing it as a unity, or seeing it as an infinitude of "different things," are both arbitrary perspectives. Which one proves to be the more interesting one to contemplate, is up to the individual.

It is interesting how our perspectives see things. Like above, i do not feel they need to be separate. i see it as a bunch of different, individual things that all make up the unified whole. Sheesh, its only a paradox if you are approaching it dualistically

Bahhh, tired of your argumentation battle..
Leaving this thread, bye.

Originally posted by sinohptik
i take that as a tongue in cheek comment, as anyone who claims to practice zen is deceiving themselves and others! i assume that is the context under which it was delivered, at least

It wouldn't be such a mystery if you got what I was saying about words themselves even being dualistic by nature.

I can use words to try to point to what non-duality is, but as long as I'm using words, then I'm still making use of a duality in order to try to deny duality. Yes, it is very much like "practicing" Zen, I suppose you mean in the sense that there is nothing to practice.

To truly approach nonduality, we must not do it through dualistic systems.

Well this is what I was asking about, when I asked if you knew of any better approach. Honestly without a dualistic system (language) I would not even have a conception of anything other than duality. I guess I mean I don't think it's really impossible for the snake to eat its own tail, if you will, in this case. I also believe the multiplicity of the body can be unified through consciousness itself, at least so it's no longer experienced as a duality. This is actually something I do practice on a regular basis, with body awareness and visualization exercises and things of that nature.

The true understanding of such things is experiential in nature. The words used are not so relevant, as they are all limited and little more than fingers pointing at the moon. So, the trick is not so much summing up how "i" see it, but putting it into words that another perspective can use to find such things for themselves.

Right, which is why I used "black and white" to the poster earlier instead of "red or blue" or any other perceived opposites that would be harder to relate to. I think most people are familiar with the term "black and white" in English, as a way of describing a stark, dualistic contrast, with no shades of gray, so to speak.

As i see it, the material universe is relegated to duality. There are certain laws and balances that exist, as well as growth. However, this is just one universe amongst many, some intertwining. The "realm" that contains our spirit, what i feel is an electromagnetic body, is a universe that exists alongside the material one, if not others.

Stanford's materials professor Dr. Bill Tiller has done some work with this (an energetic body existing on the "other side" of the speed of light actually, along with magnetic particles he calls "magnons" and a lot of other really fascinating, experiment-based theories). I entertain the idea of infinite parallel universes that quantum physics has been playing with (not so outlandish to me), but when I say "universe" I'm talking about lumping together everything in existence, at any time or any place, by the farthest stretches of the human imagination. I guess the "real" term for everything then would be multi-verses, or meta-verses? Anyway I still believe everything that exists shares the commonality of existence, and that this means something non-trivial in itself. I also believe we can experience glimpses of non-duality at any place and time within these universes, because they arise energetically, on the quantum level or some more fundamental level, straight out of singularity, though science has been looking for this unified field for a while and has yet to find it.

If the material universe has no duality, then good and bad, as concepts, do not exist.

I never said that beings do not experience duality here. I'm just saying there is no more "logical justification" that everyone should see things as dualistic, as there is that everyone should see things holistically. Just like seeing the brain as cells or as a single entity, either is "correct" as far as anything logic or science have to say about it.

However, if the material universe is dualistic and cyclical, then the concept of duality would be applicable.

That "if" really depends on perspective again. If everything were 100% cyclical then nothing novel could ever happen. I agree with that saying, "the more things change, the more they stay the same." There are constantly perceptions of both new things happening in the world, as well as perceptions of other things remaining constant. Often they are intertwined, like new ways of manifesting old ideas, like history "repeating itself" (though not a literal repetition).

It should be noted, i view all dualistic systems to have wave structures. Meaning, that good/bad would inevitably be included in that.

Then for you, because you choose to see things this way, "good" and "bad" have some kind of concrete meaning I guess. But try coming up with a definition of "good" and "bad" that everyone universally agrees with, across all political issues, etc., and that's a real problem, because not everyone does have the same perspective. "Good" and "bad" mean different things to different people. That's where the arbitrariness of the words comes in. I don't believe this is a trivial difference either. It just goes to show again that, as far as "logic" or "reasoning" go, there is no one favorable definition over all the others.

The idea of objectivity over-riding subjectivity is perhaps an example of duality, with concepts of good and bad, to you?

I don't believe pure objectivity (as in, something "dead," mechanical and "out there" totally separate from consciousness) truly exists, but for convenience and the sake of argument, I assume it exists so that logic and reasoning in the scientific sense can be employed. Like I said earlier, logic, reasoning, and science are all just tools to me, rather than something like a religion where I take all the theories literally. It is possible to make logic and mathematics appear to contradict themselves, like what Godel accomplished with his theorem in the early 1930s. So that has to be recognized, that even these systems are not truly "objective" but only what we see into them. "Really" I think all there is, is a multitude of subjectivities overlapping with each other from millions of different beings and perspectives interacting with each other.

Are you focusing solely on the concepts of good/bad or on duality in general? As i see good/bad are representative of the underlying system.

Duality in general.

Do you view objectivity to be the sole way of understanding the universe?

I think what I just said above should answer that.

i agree that we dont need to introduce any specific words. In truth, we could use brazzlegrork/nimplynoof as identifiers of the underlying dualistic system.

Right, but I was pointing out something separate too. Even the existence of two points, "A" and "B", indicates a duality. However, viewing longer routes as "bad," and shorter routes as "good," introduces another duality on top of that, which in itself is of no practical use here that I can see. Just shorter and longer are straightforward enough in my estimation. If I want to go the shorter route, I will go it, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't also enjoy the experience of going the longer route, and the only way to find out would be to actually take that route as well. When we take the extra step to judge them with concepts separate from simply shorter and longer, we pigeon-hole whatever may or may not be experienced in the longer route as "bad" without actually having any knowledge of it experientially, you see? That is why I say I do not find any use in judging that route "bad" (a different concept than longer) just by its length alone, because that may turn out to be a mis-characterization even by our own estimation, if we actually took that route and discovered something unanticipated but useful or enjoyable in its own right along that path.

As you say, growth itself is indicative of duality. Here we run into the inevitable subjectivity of things as i am trying to discuss the underlying base system of duality, and you are discussing a specific context. Do you understand what i mean by that? Hard to put into words without using many of them

The concept of good/bad does not need to involve any positive or negative judgment whatsoever.

I'm not sure I'm really following what you mean here. I can see how "good" and "bad" can be defined without having any connotations of "positive" or "negative" (or favorable/disfavorable, desirable/undesirable, in accordance with will/not in accordance with will, etc.) no different than the words you made up above can be defined however anyone wants them, however in reality I think most people would see those words respectively as more or less synonymous 99.99% of the time. That is why I try to avoid them.

Since, if one dualistic concept is negated because of omnipresent non-duality

This is not what I am saying. Like I said in my last post, if I were in any way arguing that singularity negated duality, then it would defeat my own argument. Just like saying that duality is "bad," that would also obviously defeat my own argument. That is not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying they are both equally viable perspectives and neither one actually makes any more "logical" sense than the other. They co-exist, though one automatically encompasses the totality of the other (singularity encompasses all dualism, thus its singularity). Again, this is not "good" or "bad," and can't be, by what I am expressing, because that would only be more duality and not allow room for a unity of existence.

Lets instead use successful/unsuccessful, because good and bad tend to have a lot of personal baggage that can be hard to see through. If you change that around in the science examples i give, perhaps the concept i am attempting to relay will be a little more clear, because in this arena, context is not necessarily important. Meaning, that good/bad are human understandings and representations of the underlying cyclical system.

Right, and I described this in my earlier post above as will. We as humans desire certain things to happen in accordance with our will. This is also something completely subjective and that changes from one person to another.

Non-duality may only be a more encompassing system simply because it is the nature of the "container,"

That's exactly what I mean when I say singularity is more encompassing than duality, literally all-encompassing simply because this is the very concept we mean by a "unity" or "singularity." Not even applicable to just the human body but to everything in the entirety of existence.

Interesting, isnt it, how even at the edges of our perspective, things merge into one "thing?" When most try to approach "oneness," they tend to try to cram everything into their perspective, when it is more understanding ones place and part here.

Honestly I can't even begin to rationalize singularity in any way whatsoever other than the simple definition of it being all-encompassing, ie everything, and therefore nothing existing apart from it. Beyond that, I can't tell you anything about it, because think about it this way: if I describe singularity as "good," that means it can't also be "bad." Really it has to encompass both of those perspectives and infinitely more to truly be a unity of everything in existence. I can't call it "hot" because that would imply that it's not also "cold," which it would have to be. How can this be? Well the Earth is even hot and cold. It just depends if you're on an iceberg or in a volcano. The singularity of everything in existence also has to include all variables and extremes within it, even all contradictions and the very concept of contradiction itself. So it can't be described as like this but not like that, because that wouldn't make any sense. It just has to simply be, and it is everything.

I enjoy formal logic as a tool, and this tool says that looking at a day as peaks of light&dark, or a single cycle, are equally valid expressions.

Indeed, however, perhaps they need not be separate views either. One could simply see it as one cycle, that has different peaks depending on context.

Well since I acknowledge both views, a dualism and a singularity, are both equally legitimate, then yes, I already see how both views can exist in a harmony with each other.

Honestly, i am not too interested in speaking about duality specifically, more speaking with those who have an interest in it, if that makes sense

Yes. I have interests in dualistic concepts too, mainly sciences and various esoteric fields and psychology. They all operate by taking reality and analyzing it, ie breaking it down into smaller parts of concepts so we can see things interacting with each other like puzzle pieces, and this can offer much more complexity and beauty in the way we see and interact with our environment. But for this thread I set all of those things aside to remind of the equally-valid viewpoint that there is no distinction between any of these things and it's simply one thing.

It is interesting how our perspectives see things. Like above, i do not feel they need to be separate. i see it as a bunch of different, individual things that all make up the unified whole.

Neither do I see them as separate, just separate perspectives in a certain harmony with each other, since I can and do entertain both ways of looking at things. When "they" are one, it's a singularity, it's everything, and everything is integrally linked so as to not even be distinguishable. But when I want to analyze things in bits and pieces, so that I can make discriminating decisions in the physical world, duality has to be employed.

Sheesh, its only a paradox if you are approaching it dualistically

No kidding.

That's why I don't think science will ever get their "unified field theory" until they make that leap from purely analytical studies, to seeing everything as an integral whole as well. Scientists themselves are realizing this though I think, thus the very idea of a "unified field," and I think the practical merging of science and spirituality is a very real possibility in our lifetimes.

Originally posted by Manula
Bahhh, tired of your argumentation battle..
Leaving this thread, bye.

We're actually not really arguing with each other, so much as we are simply exchanging ideas and fleshing out what I have really been trying to express with this thread. Our perspectives seem very much to share the same ideas, just organized in different ways by two different people.


Our posts are pretty long, and that sucks for casual reading, but if you do read them you will see this.



Also what you were asking in your post at the top of this page is hit upon in our discourse above. I just thought if you were reading along you would see this and not need me to respond directly to you in order to see what my ideas are personally.

reply to post by bsbray11


Just to expand on this, i was not aware that we were arguing either

It is one of the better conversations i have had on this website, or even in general. i think many see disagreement as automatic argument though. Even then though, we arent even necessarily disagreeing, i see it more as working out how best to verbalize an experiential process so that others may see more clearly what is being spoken about. We are also just learning about each other. i think people need to understand that even when people disagree, they can still cooperate and explore the issue at hand. Most though, when they are asked questions, immediately go into defense mode even if they are not the one being asked questions.

Perhaps bsb is right though, read through some of the posts we are putting out. We are even having a bit of fun at each others "expense." Really, its actually a good conversation, and illustrates how differing viewpoints can still work together, learn together, and explore together.

i will be back in a bit to respond to your post bsb, sorry to get your hopes up with this one

Really though, the long posts suck for non-casual readers too Some of us just cant help ourselves. Personally, i type at over 120 wpm, so long paragraphs are frequently typed faster than i could speak them. i am aware of this though, and try to do my best to make things succinct. The topic sometimes dictates some length though.

Originally posted by sinohptik
Even then though, we arent even necessarily disagreeing, i see it more as working out how best to verbalize an experiential process so that others may see more clearly what is being spoken about.

Right, and it would be very valuable to me to be more effective in communicating these ideas. But it seems that if anything we have only run into the fact that language doesn't make a good medium for expressing ideas that deny words themselves. Maybe when we finally get telepathy down, these kinds of exchanges will come much more naturally.

i will be back in a bit to respond to your post bsb, sorry to get your hopes up with this one

Ah you didn't get my hopes up. Honestly while I enjoy our conversation, I'm not sure how many more of these long responses I can do today myself. If you respond again today I might have to return to your post tomorrow. You are definitely forcing me to have to articulate ideas much more clearly than I have so far in this thread though, and for that I'm even learning more about myself, as I learn about you.

Personally, i type at over 120 wpm, so long paragraphs are frequently typed faster than i could speak them. i am aware of this though, and try to do my best to make things succinct. The topic sometimes dictates some length though.

I'm trying to be as succinct as possible too, but because of the linguistic issue here this is definitely one of those topics.

*takes a deep breath*

*twitches*

Here we go..

Originally posted by bsbray11
It wouldn't be such a mystery if you got what I was saying about words themselves even being dualistic by nature.

I can use words to try to point to what non-duality is, but as long as I'm using words, then I'm still making use of a duality in order to try to deny duality. Yes, it is very much like "practicing" Zen, I suppose you mean in the sense that there is nothing to practice.

Not a mystery, you just know what "they" say about making assumptions! Always like to clarify, though i figured you put it that way intentionally. Zen is a funny concept, much like the universe

Well this is what I was asking about, when I asked if you knew of any better approach. Honestly without a dualistic system (language) I would not even have a conception of anything other than duality. I guess I mean I don't think it's really impossible for the snake to eat its own tail, if you will, in this case. I also believe the multiplicity of the body can be unified through consciousness itself, at least so it's no longer experienced as a duality. This is actually something I do practice on a regular basis, with body awareness and visualization exercises and things of that nature.

i am going to send you a U2U with something i am working on.

Stanford's materials professor Dr. Bill Tiller has done some work with this (an energetic body existing on the "other side" of the speed of light actually, along with magnetic particles he calls "magnons" and a lot of other really fascinating, experiment-based theories). I entertain the idea of infinite parallel universes that quantum physics has been playing with (not so outlandish to me), but when I say "universe" I'm talking about lumping together everything in existence, at any time or any place, by the farthest stretches of the human imagination. I guess the "real" term for everything then would be multi-verses, or meta-verses? Anyway I still believe everything that exists shares the commonality of existence, and that this means something non-trivial in itself. I also believe we can experience glimpses of non-duality at any place and time within these universes, because they arise energetically, on the quantum level or some more fundamental level, straight out of singularity, though science has been looking for this unified field for a while and has yet to find it.

Yeah, when i say "universe" it can be a bit of a variety of terms. It can either denote a place where the laws are consistent within the container (like our typically described universe) and then i have also used it to describe the total system, or container of the containers. i also refer to this as God Perhaps if we were to use things like multi/metaverses it would give clearer context. i feel too though, that such words may have some negative connotations amongst some, so its always a balance.

If the material universe has no duality, then good and bad, as concepts, do not exist.

I never said that beings do not experience duality here. I'm just saying there is no more "logical justification" that everyone should see things as dualistic, as there is that everyone should see things holistically. Just like seeing the brain as cells or as a single entity, either is "correct" as far as anything logic or science have to say about it.

i see, there was definitely miscommunication. i perceived, even by your thread title, that you were speaking of non-duality from a standpoint where the dichotomy can not exist without the peak and valley, so the peak and valley "dont exist." But, perhaps you were speaking of good/bad from the respect of say.. a personal aversion or liking for any one subject, based on thinking such things as good or bad? i agree that such perceptions can frequently be wrong, as many of the things that are perceived as "bad" have the most to teach, which is "good." i was speaking of the underlying concept, instead of one specific context. Good/bad, specifically, does have some interesting connotations beyond the typical duality though.

Then for you, because you choose to see things this way, "good" and "bad" have some kind of concrete meaning I guess. But try coming up with a definition of "good" and "bad" that everyone universally agrees with, across all political issues, etc., and that's a real problem, because not everyone does have the same perspective. "Good" and "bad" mean different things to different people. That's where the arbitrariness of the words comes in. I don't believe this is a trivial difference either. It just goes to show again that, as far as "logic" or "reasoning" go, there is no one favorable definition over all the others.

i think, like i alluded to above, that we are speaking about slightly different things here. i am using good/bad to illustrate the underlying concept, and you might be approaching it as a specific context. i agree about communication of subjective experience though. It is quite difficult to relay these things in the way they were experienced. Each persons good/bad is seen to exist as individual (but not separate) waves that are simultaneously and equally supported by the universe. Residing in these dualities in totality, instead of being their conscious creator, can be extremely deceptive and destructive though, as im sure you are aware.

I don't believe pure objectivity (as in, something "dead," mechanical and "out there" totally separate from consciousness) truly exists, but for convenience and the sake of argument, I assume it exists so that logic and reasoning in the scientific sense can be employed. Like I said earlier, logic, reasoning, and science are all just tools to me, rather than something like a religion where I take all the theories literally. It is possible to make logic and mathematics appear to contradict themselves, like what Godel accomplished with his theorem in the early 1930s. So that has to be recognized, that even these systems are not truly "objective" but only what we see into them. "Really" I think all there is, is a multitude of subjectivities overlapping with each other from millions of different beings and perspectives interacting with each other.

i always think its an interesting question to ask i think that any product of a human is subjective, even if based in consistent, usable patterns. There is the physical world "out there" (terrible word choice), and then there is our perception of it. So, under this premise, if someone were to ask if a tree falling in the woods makes a sound with no one around to hear it, the answer is "yes." However, i feel that these perceptions have a physical existence within some level of the universe or "multiverse." Meaning, that while they may not be "omniscient," they are always valid in that they are an actual part of what "is."

Right, but I was pointing out something separate too. Even the existence of two points, "A" and "B", indicates a duality. However, viewing longer routes as "bad," and shorter routes as "good," introduces another duality on top of that, which in itself is of no practical use here that I can see. Just shorter and longer are straightforward enough in my estimation. If I want to go the shorter route, I will go it, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't also enjoy the experience of going the longer route, and the only way to find out would be to actually take that route as well. When we take the extra step to judge them with concepts separate from simply shorter and longer, we pigeon-hole whatever may or may not be experienced in the longer route as "bad" without actually having any knowledge of it experientially, you see? That is why I say I do not find any use in judging that route "bad" (a different concept than longer) just by its length alone, because that may turn out to be a mis-characterization even by our own estimation, if we actually took that route and discovered something unanticipated but useful or enjoyable in its own right along that path.
...
I'm not sure I'm really following what you mean here. I can see how "good" and "bad" can be defined without having any connotations of "positive" or "negative" (or favorable/disfavorable, desirable/undesirable, in accordance with will/not in accordance with will, etc.) no different than the words you made up above can be defined however anyone wants them, however in reality I think most people would see those words respectively as more or less synonymous 99.99% of the time. That is why I try to avoid them.

Maybe if i expanded on the words i am using, it will help. Because i know where you are coming from, but i am not communicating what i am trying to get across. When i use the word "concept," i am pointing to the underlying.. natural law of what is happening beyond whatever our perception may be of it. When i use the term context, i mean the limited human representation, or understanding, of that underlying concept. Various contexts are things like mathematics, science, religion, philosophy, and even just overall individual perspective. So, when i say i am speaking of the concept of good/bad i mean the underlying concept beyond whatever our inevitably subjective perspective says about it. When i say the context, i mean the individual definition of that duality. So, if we remove the duality from good/bad itself, then the context itself is seen to change. Does that wave exist beyond the subjectivity (as a concept)? Or is it something that resides fully within subjectivity? Pretty much a different context for the age-old question of the tree falling in the woods

Non-duality may only be a more encompassing system simply because it is the nature of the "container,"

That's exactly what I mean when I say singularity is more encompassing than duality, literally all-encompassing simply because this is the very concept we mean by a "unity" or "singularity." Not even applicable to just the human body but to everything in the entirety of existence.

Well, that comment was just a setup for the following lines. It was just a presentation of a possibility that i find interesting. That is, the possibility of the non-dualistic container we know, being contained itself by a dualistic one instead of just duality only existing within this one specific container.

Honestly I can't even begin to rationalize singularity in any way whatsoever other than the simple definition of it being all-encompassing, ie everything, and therefore nothing existing apart from it. Beyond that, I can't tell you anything about it, because think about it this way: if I describe singularity as "good," that means it can't also be "bad." Really it has to encompass both of those perspectives and infinitely more to truly be a unity of everything in existence. I can't call it "hot" because that would imply that it's not also "cold," which it would have to be. How can this be? Well the Earth is even hot and cold. It just depends if you're on an iceberg or in a volcano. The singularity of everything in existence also has to include all variables and extremes within it, even all contradictions and the very concept of contradiction itself. So it can't be described as like this but not like that, because that wouldn't make any sense. It just has to simply be, and it is everything.

Agreed, and i feel the same thing can be applied to "good/bad." If one describes something as good, it doesnt need to mean "bad" is disregarded. However, this is strictly in understanding the concept of duality, and not necessarily a specific context. i think i explain it pretty well above the difference between the two, but i would think that, so do let me know if it isnt clear.

Indeed, however, perhaps they need not be separate views either. One could simply see it as one cycle, that has different peaks depending on context.

Well since I acknowledge both views, a dualism and a singularity, are both equally legitimate, then yes, I already see how both views can exist in a harmony with each other.

Well, i wasnt necessarily saying they exist in harmony, i was saying that the two views do not need to be individual. Not in the "everything is one" way, but in the way i am individual from you (but not separate). So, i do not view them as two individual parts of the same system, i see them as a single view, a single entity. i have always felt that was the root of advaita, realizing non-duality/duality simultaneously. Such things are inevitably beyond our context, so to approach them, it has to be through different processes. i have explained how i personally feel is the most effective way to do this in other posts around the board (even using words). If you care to know about it, ill dig em up.

Yes. I have interests in dualistic concepts too, mainly sciences and various esoteric fields and psychology. They all operate by taking reality and analyzing it, ie breaking it down into smaller parts of concepts so we can see things interacting with each other like puzzle pieces, and this can offer much more complexity and beauty in the way we see and interact with our environment. But for this thread I set all of those things aside to remind of the equally-valid viewpoint that there is no distinction between any of these things and it's simply one thing.

To just expand, i like saying its lots of "one things" making up "one thing." Once again though, not as two harmonious viewpoints or two of the "one things" that make up the "one thing," but as the same experiential thought process, or just "one thing." It is quite fun learning how to put this concept into words successfully though, so i appreciate the patience. Along similar lines, i like to use an arm analogy. Basically, to move ones arm, you cant just think about it moving, you must actually move it. One can sit there, looking at their arm, trying to will it to move, but it never will. Yet, when we simply move the arm, we are successful. It all uses synapses and the brain, but one method will yield results, and the other will have nothing to show. i feel that this is a good illustration of the two dualistic aspects of our own movement in this material world between the observer and the action. The goal, for me, was to realize both of them simultaneously, as the same thing, but with different attributes. This could not be done, inevitably, using the brain alone. It involved awareness of all the "one things" that make up the "one thing" of my physical body. Once again, i go into better detail elsewhere and im trying to keep length down a bit, though its still long!

It is interesting how our perspectives see things. Like above, i do not feel they need to be separate. i see it as a bunch of different, individual things that all make up the unified whole.

Neither do I see them as separate, just separate perspectives in a certain harmony with each other, since I can and do entertain both ways of looking at things. When "they" are one, it's a singularity, it's everything, and everything is integrally linked so as to not even be distinguishable. But when I want to analyze things in bits and pieces, so that I can make discriminating decisions in the physical world, duality has to be employed.

i think i have found that using the word "individual" instead of separate tends to communicate a little more closely to the context i am trying to put forward. i think it is good to analyze the bits and pieces, though perhaps being aware of such things simultaneously (literally) may yield even more results. It was that idea that lead me to all of this actually. i became.. doubtful of the current "status quo" perspective being able to perform science, and the scientific method, properly. At least at this point "in the game."

That's why I don't think science will ever get their "unified field theory" until they make that leap from purely analytical studies, to seeing everything as an integral whole as well. Scientists themselves are realizing this though I think, thus the very idea of a "unified field," and I think the practical merging of science and spirituality is a very real possibility in our lifetimes.

i agree, though i dont necessarily think they are realizing this. Most scientists have gotten so far into their own minds and the mathematics there that they no longer have application to the "real world." At least that is my experience. There really never was much "progress" within science, most changes came from fringe "explorers" who were ridiculed until their premises were accepted as self evident. In this respect, science is very good at exploring facets of what it already knows, though it is notoriously unwelcoming to any sort of new idea (for centuries now). i find it interesting that so many view the industry of science as some altruistic entity, but its a business, pure and simple. When it becomes profitable to move general understanding forward a bit, it will be done, but before that the goal is all about maintaining budget. i think this specific subject is starting to veer horribly off topic though

Also, dont feel obligated to respond as quickly as possible. id rather someone i am speaking with takes their time and tries to dig deeper into what i am saying before responding. i think its a good thing If it makes you feel any better, i wasnt even planning on responding today. But then i did.

reply to post by bsbray11


I wish I had the time to read and reflect on the dialogue between yourself and sinohptic, as I have a high regard for both of your perspectives.

But try coming up with a definition of "good" and "bad" that everyone universally agrees with, across all political issues, etc., and that's a real problem, because not everyone does have the same perspective. "Good" and "bad" mean different things to different people

How about a general definition which goes something like:

Good is that which is subjectively preferable to that which is regarded as bad by comparison?

Originally posted by mysticnoon
How about a general definition which goes something like:

Good is that which is subjectively preferable to that which is regarded as bad by comparison?

That would be closest to an objective definition I suppose, and it still acknowledges that "good" and "bad" are actually subjective.

I'll have to respond to sinohptik's post a little later. Probably today but not right this second.

I decided to omit the parts of the discussion where we were already in agreement in so many words, and just focus on the parts where communication was originally eluding us.

Originally posted by sinohptik
i see, there was definitely miscommunication. i perceived, even by your thread title, that you were speaking of non-duality from a standpoint where the dichotomy can not exist without the peak and valley, so the peak and valley "dont exist." But, perhaps you were speaking of good/bad from the respect of say.. a personal aversion or liking for any one subject, based on thinking such things as good or bad?

When I wrote the OP I was coming from more of a perspective of "singularity" as expressed through dualistic language and dualistic examples, if that makes sense. That's because I don't know of any direct way to refer to it, than utilizing dualistic thoughts as "scaffolds" if you will.

i think, like i alluded to above, that we are speaking about slightly different things here. i am using good/bad to illustrate the underlying concept, and you might be approaching it as a specific context.

Right, as the underlying concept I referred to the same thing above as "will" or "desire" but those things would be relevant to what is "good" or "bad" to someone, and even though everyone has desires, they also change significantly from one person to the next. It's like a constant in some sense and a variable in another sense, more of things changing just to remain the same I suppose.

When i use the word "concept," i am pointing to the underlying.. natural law of what is happening beyond whatever our perception may be of it. When i use the term context, i mean the limited human representation, or understanding, of that underlying concept. Various contexts are things like mathematics, science, religion, philosophy, and even just overall individual perspective. So, when i say i am speaking of the concept of good/bad i mean the underlying concept beyond whatever our inevitably subjective perspective says about it.

That reminds me of an idea I had to define "bad" as synonymous with entropy in physics, and "good" with a concept of reverse-entropy (which I know is not supposed to exist, and yet sentient life and self-organizing information systems seem to accomplish this anyway, at least within some closed systems). That way the words would actually have something "concrete" and scientific behind them. But the problem is that something being destroyed, or suffering entropy, is not always a "bad" thing, so the words would already lose their meaning in the conventional sense in order to fit this new perspective.

But the general idea was that love ("reverse-entropy") brings things together and promotes intelligence (cooperation and coordination) and more stable structure, while fear ("entropy") separates things and reduces them from greater wholes into constituent parts that may act against other parts. This way of looking at it, it could be equally applied to individual relationships, societies and civilizations, or even physics. I believe there is some kind of ebb-and-flow of energy to this extent in the universe, but again I also see various shades of gray and other complexities so that I can't just nail down a hard-and-fast rule to define what is "good" or what is "bad" for everyone.

So, if we remove the duality from good/bad itself, then the context itself is seen to change. Does that wave exist beyond the subjectivity (as a concept)? Or is it something that resides fully within subjectivity? Pretty much a different context for the age-old question of the tree falling in the woods

I think both would be possible, a will or desire continuing to exist even without those words (good&bad), or desires ceasing to exist, as Buddhists seek. Maybe desire is relevant to 3D material existence as you suggest, for survival/biological/physics reasons, but in "higher realms" it's not as relevant anymore.

Well, that comment was just a setup for the following lines. It was just a presentation of a possibility that i find interesting. That is, the possibility of the non-dualistic container we know, being contained itself by a dualistic one instead of just duality only existing within this one specific container.

That's an interesting idea and I haven't put much thought into that. It sounds to me like it would tie into multi-dimensional theory, insofar as there being universes nested within universes. Or a space-time reality like this one, being embedded within a non-duality that also contains infinitely more space-times, but this relative singularity of universes being encompassed by an even larger system that contains even stranger structures. Quantum physics is already playing with 10 and more dimensions so it's hard to say how it might all actually work out. But in the end I think we would still be faced with a dualism vs. singularity perspective discrepancy, as a "hard limit" if you will of what can "contain" other things, and what is being "contained." It just might take going through several layers of dimensionality (or an infinite number of them) to realize this.

Just being able to contemplate the possibilities here, and what they would look like from a 3D being's point of view, is exciting stuff. It's understood that when people are ignorant of some information, they simply never consider it as a possibility, because how could they? But when you can... This is just one more reason why I should spend the effort to take up lucid dreaming again.

Agreed, and i feel the same thing can be applied to "good/bad." If one describes something as good, it doesnt need to mean "bad" is disregarded.

Of course not. On the contrary it implies that something else is bad. So if you say something is good, then by relation, at least one thing in existence must also be "bad." But this is looking from a more singular perspective to see how "good" and "bad" may tie together, and their apparent opposition being reconciled by showing how they in fact define one another by contrasting each other. From a purely dualistic perspective this wouldn't make sense because there would only be "good" and "bad" and no useful relation at all, and they would simply be literal opposites.

Well, i wasnt necessarily saying they exist in harmony, i was saying that the two views do not need to be individual. Not in the "everything is one" way, but in the way i am individual from you (but not separate).

You mean, from a singular perspective, singularity and duality don't need to be different perspectives (and actually couldn't be, or it would create dualism automatically), but from a dualistic perspective, they could/would be? I can see how this gets very confusing.

i have always felt that was the root of advaita, realizing non-duality/duality simultaneously.

Maybe the most sublime form of duality, is the rapid alternation between seeing all things as one and seeing all things as individual essences? Maybe on a different dimensional level there isn't even alternation and they are simply the same thing at the same time, the most sublime singularity? Or maybe both are true or even that there is never any reconciling between them at all. I have a feeling what is really eluding us, is the ability to think in more dimensions than 3 or 4 at the same time, because there may be some crazy geometrical shape out there that explains how these things may be possible. But without that I think all I'm going to get is a headache.

Along similar lines, i like to use an arm analogy. Basically, to move ones arm, you cant just think about it moving, you must actually move it. One can sit there, looking at their arm, trying to will it to move, but it never will. Yet, when we simply move the arm, we are successful. It all uses synapses and the brain, but one method will yield results, and the other will have nothing to show. i feel that this is a good illustration of the two dualistic aspects of our own movement in this material world between the observer and the action. The goal, for me, was to realize both of them simultaneously, as the same thing, but with different attributes. This could not be done, inevitably, using the brain alone. It involved awareness of all the "one things" that make up the "one thing" of my physical body. Once again, i go into better detail elsewhere and im trying to keep length down a bit, though its still long!

Have you ever done a thread on that? I'd be interested in reading a more expanded elaboration of that analogy. It is intriguing to me, the way we move our limbs. We can think about moving limbs without actually doing it, as you say. So there is definitely something else involved there.

i think i have found that using the word "individual" instead of separate tends to communicate a little more closely to the context i am trying to put forward. i think it is good to analyze the bits and pieces, though perhaps being aware of such things simultaneously (literally) may yield even more results. It was that idea that lead me to all of this actually. i became.. doubtful of the current "status quo" perspective being able to perform science, and the scientific method, properly. At least at this point "in the game."

I think there is definitely something to considering both perspectives too. Calculus actually uses both functions, differentiating into separate things (differential calculus), and integrating into a unity (integral calculus). Those are the main two "branches" of calculus. It's interesting and maybe typical of modern man to have placed so much emphasis upon differentiating things faster than he has assimilated all the smaller parts into a big picture, as far as science goes.

i agree, though i dont necessarily think they are realizing this. Most scientists have gotten so far into their own minds and the mathematics there that they no longer have application to the "real world." At least that is my experience. There really never was much "progress" within science, most changes came from fringe "explorers" who were ridiculed until their premises were accepted as self evident.

Well maybe that's the core of our difference on this issue then. Because I was taking all those crazy fringe people into account too, and I think there are more of us today than ever. No doubt you still have your core of certain JREF'ish people though who are increasingly barricading themselves into a purely mechanical view of the universe and refusing to come out and play with these paradoxical integrations. When we find a good use for these kinds of explorations, I think it'll spread naturally and those people will just be left behind like the pre-Copernicans were. Quantum mechanics is already forcing a lot of them to at least admit there is a lot we still don't know, like how entanglement is able to get around the speed of light. So the least they can admit is that there is some other relation between matter/energy that we still don't understand.

In this respect, science is very good at exploring facets of what it already knows, though it is notoriously unwelcoming to any sort of new idea (for centuries now). i find it interesting that so many view the industry of science as some altruistic entity, but its a business, pure and simple. When it becomes profitable to move general understanding forward a bit, it will be done, but before that the goal is all about maintaining budget. i think this specific subject is starting to veer horribly off topic though

We are definitely getting off the topic here, but I also agree with you 100%. Add to that the fact that the military has been working with grotesque research&development budgets for decades and no doubt has lots of technology they haven't been telling anyone else about.

Just a quick "drive-by" response i will respond a bit more in depth later.

I think both would be possible, a will or desire continuing to exist even without those words (good&bad), or desires ceasing to exist, as Buddhists seek. Maybe desire is relevant to 3D material existence as you suggest, for survival/biological/physics reasons, but in "higher realms" it's not as relevant anymore.

i view those other "realms" as different universes. i feel it is a possibility that the quantum realm may actually be a different universe, with different laws of physics, that interacts partially because of the close proximity of the orbit. So, i see it as "worlds within worlds," similar to our body, but overall, i feel the general construct is likely similar to solar systems and galaxies, based in orbital type structures. So, in this context, the quantum realm might be looked at as similar to our moon to the earth. Not the best analogy, but i hope it gets across what im trying to say

Well, i wasnt necessarily saying they exist in harmony, i was saying that the two views do not need to be individual. Not in the "everything is one" way, but in the way i am individual from you (but not separate).

You mean, from a singular perspective, singularity and duality don't need to be different perspectives (and actually couldn't be, or it would create dualism automatically), but from a dualistic perspective, they could/would be? I can see how this gets very confusing.

And its actually my main point as well. Using your contexts combined with mine, the "singularity" is represented by our "spirit," or "observer," and the duality is represented and experienced through our "action," "ego," or "body." These things can not be understood through each other, but they are "equal" parts of us. So, our perspective can encompass both simultaneously, however, we must base our perspective in something other than our ego alone, or most commonly, thought processes. As well, we can not base our perspective solely in the observer, or we will make no real movement other than in our thoughts.

Maybe the most sublime form of duality, is the rapid alternation between seeing all things as one and seeing all things as individual essences? Maybe on a different dimensional level there isn't even alternation and they are simply the same thing at the same time, the most sublime singularity? Or maybe both are true or even that there is never any reconciling between them at all. I have a feeling what is really eluding us, is the ability to think in more dimensions than 3 or 4 at the same time, because there may be some crazy geometrical shape out there that explains how these things may be possible. But without that I think all I'm going to get is a headache.

i feel no alternation is necessary. At least, that is how it is practiced by this one. The trick is in allowing what is already occurring in our being to rise up alongside our thought processes and mind in our continuous awareness. i feel alternation introduces duality into an aspect of our being where it is not present except in our thought processes.

i think, like i alluded to above, that we are speaking about slightly different things here. i am using good/bad to illustrate the underlying concept, and you might be approaching it as a specific context.

Right, as the underlying concept I referred to the same thing above as "will" or "desire" but those things would be relevant to what is "good" or "bad" to someone, and even though everyone has desires, they also change significantly from one person to the next. It's like a constant in some sense and a variable in another sense, more of things changing just to remain the same I suppose.

Indeed! Though, as i hope my last post would clarify, i do not view it as "underlying," but equally present to (but not within) the action. The reason i keep saying that is because its.. kind of the hinge, or base, to everything else i am saying.

That reminds me of an idea I had to define "bad" as synonymous with entropy in physics, and "good" with a concept of reverse-entropy (which I know is not supposed to exist, and yet sentient life and self-organizing information systems seem to accomplish this anyway, at least within some closed systems). That way the words would actually have something "concrete" and scientific behind them. But the problem is that something being destroyed, or suffering entropy, is not always a "bad" thing, so the words would already lose their meaning in the conventional sense in order to fit this new perspective.

But the general idea was that love ("reverse-entropy") brings things together and promotes intelligence (cooperation and coordination) and more stable structure, while fear ("entropy") separates things and reduces them from greater wholes into constituent parts that may act against other parts. This way of looking at it, it could be equally applied to individual relationships, societies and civilizations, or even physics. I believe there is some kind of ebb-and-flow of energy to this extent in the universe, but again I also see various shades of gray and other complexities so that I can't just nail down a hard-and-fast rule to define what is "good" or what is "bad" for everyone.

While it largely carries some new age baggage, the idea of "neg-entropy" may interest you. i think it still isnt an accurate notion, but its closer to pointing in the right direction, as many of sciences current "laws" contradict the very universe they are observing (as you have noted). i personally feel most everyone is looking at all the clay that has been built up, when it is the underlying structure that needs to be replaced. Though, i think we bring up the same interesting point (to me, maybe no one else ) that the ebb and flow, or peak and valley, are not attribute representative of the shades of grey. To this ones perspective, they are simply the shades of grey that are the lines, or boundary of sorts, to that specific duality. So, the "peak" and "valley," are themselves, shades of grey. Its actually this entire concept that the drawing of a yin/yang symbol was created (at least i feel!). To show the subjective quality of a wave. The objective quality is demonstrated by a sin wave (or similar). But, they themselves both exist within the same wave.

So, to clarify, i actually view those gray areas as duality, as they are just different parts of the same wave. The space in which those waves exists is non-dualistic. This applies to the observer/action scenario as well.

Just being able to contemplate the possibilities here, and what they would look like from a 3D being's point of view, is exciting stuff. It's understood that when people are ignorant of some information, they simply never consider it as a possibility, because how could they? But when you can...

This is just one more reason why I should spend the effort to take up lucid dreaming again.

i feel that all things accomplished within lucid dreaming can be accomplished while awake. So, i do not think that "this" or "that" will allow me to grow, i feel it is how i approach and choose to perceive those very things that i used to try to find "truth."

i do suspect that being able to advance science much more will require us to advance our own perspective. That was part of my own research, and i am quite thoroughly convinced of it. Though really, we are holding scientific exploration back on so many levels, whats another?

Of course not. On the contrary it implies that something else is bad. So if you say something is good, then by relation, at least one thing in existence must also be "bad." But this is looking from a more singular perspective to see how "good" and "bad" may tie together, and their apparent opposition being reconciled by showing how they in fact define one another by contrasting each other. From a purely dualistic perspective this wouldn't make sense because there would only be "good" and "bad" and no useful relation at all, and they would simply be literal opposites.

Hmm, im not so sure it implies anything beyond our own perspective. Just as "night" will not exist on all worlds that have "day." i feel that from a purely dualistic standpoint is the only arena where if something is attributed as "good," then something else must be "bad." Having some trouble putting this into words...

I have a feeling what is really eluding us, is the ability to think in more dimensions than 3 or 4 at the same time, because there may be some crazy geometrical shape out there that explains how these things may be possible. But without that I think all I'm going to get is a headache.

i agree, although i do not know if i would be generous enough to say we can "think" in any more than one direction ("thinking"). Luckily, such things are not the only way to approach the universe. i go into slight detail here about my starting steps in that specific arena.

Have you ever done a thread on that? I'd be interested in reading a more expanded elaboration of that analogy. It is intriguing to me, the way we move our limbs. We can think about moving limbs without actually doing it, as you say. So there is definitely something else involved there.

i have not, but i have made several posts using it as a platform. i have started a few threads, and all didnt really get much as far as responses. It took a good amount of time to put them together and write them though, so i doubt i will be doing it again. Just to be blunt, i have a whole lot going on, much of which is "very big stuff." So, i feel my time is better utilized focusing on that, and just relaying the thought through personal communications like this. ill leave the thread starting up to others

I think there is definitely something to considering both perspectives too. Calculus actually uses both functions, differentiating into separate things (differential calculus), and integrating into a unity (integral calculus). Those are the main two "branches" of calculus. It's interesting and maybe typical of modern man to have placed so much emphasis upon differentiating things faster than he has assimilated all the smaller parts into a big picture, as far as science goes.

Even in tesla's time, he saw that many scientists had stopped experimenting in favor of "thinking" about things. The only issue i have with it is representative of the discussion as a whole, and that is becoming absorbed entirely in the observer, and taking no action. Obviously, there are exceptions to every rule as well

Well maybe that's the core of our difference on this issue then. Because I was taking all those crazy fringe people into account too, and I think there are more of us today than ever.

No doubt you still have your core of certain JREF'ish people though who are increasingly barricading themselves into a purely mechanical view of the universe and refusing to come out and play with these paradoxical integrations. When we find a good use for these kinds of explorations, I think it'll spread naturally and those people will just be left behind like the pre-Copernicans were. Quantum mechanics is already forcing a lot of them to at least admit there is a lot we still don't know, like how entanglement is able to get around the speed of light. So the least they can admit is that there is some other relation between matter/energy that we still don't understand.

Well, i am from the inside looking out on this one, so that is where i base my perspective and it likely biases it in some regard. i find it is easy to locate someone who will say "i dont know everything," but significantly more difficult to locate someone who will say "the things i know may be a misunderstanding." In the end, the "things we know" are limited by our very nature, and even when we think we "know," there are countless more levels to be explored, even if on that specific area. But to do so, i feel we need to advance ourselves along with science. Which, in my observation, has never even been a consideration for most in the field. You see this a lot around message boards too, where in most will perpetuate the "onus of proof is on the claimant." Perhaps it is, but i dont see how that means it is less wasteful to speak dozens of pages on it, or spend that exact same time actually exploring the concept alluded to by the individual context. Well, lets move on from this, as we both know it could be a thread in and of itself (and i even made one! ). i feel the rest of the bulk of our discussion is more important anyway