Duality

>>18812657

Duality exists as a tool to distinguish between in and out, here and there. Wether it is relevant to anything is another matter.

the fact that you asked an either-or question should answer your question for you.

File: 1490199463471.png (264KB, 403x365px) Image search: [Google]

264KB, 403x365px

>>18812677
Mind blown...

But what if I've already been indoctrinated to believe in it, with a language and society to support that?

>>18812657
Close your eyes. Now open them. There. A simple proof of duality.

>>18812657
it's a pretty good model for solving certain situations, but sometimes it's rationality can't be applied (in matters of the heart for example)

>>18812683
But is your skeleton always smiling?

So too, your eyes are always open.

>>18812682
youre focusing on the wrong thing

duality its self is an illusion
both sides of the same coin
there is only the coin
each opposite gives way to itself, they fold back in on each other

There was is and will ever only be 1 thing
where the illusion comes from doesnt matter.

>>18812694
Under everyone's skin and tissue, the skeleton has a huge smile. It's the happiest part of everyone. Even when someone is crying, you know that skeleton is grinning.

>>18812702
To call duality illusion is to call the coin itself illusion. You can't have a coin without sides. You can't have the 1 thing without duality.

>>18812827
Evil only exists insofar as duality exists.

>>18812831
>complete non-sequitor
Yes? Evil exists. Thinking otherwise is ignorance, willful denial, or psychopathy.

>>18812841
*whhooosshhh*

>>18812841
>>18812843
What is harmless fun to a trickster god, is evil and misery to a human being.

Which one actually exists?
If both, is duality even real?

>>18812843
Well when you figure out how to properly convey a point, get back to me.

>>18812852
Changing the value judgement of an act doesn't make the act or the values nonexistent.

But ALL of this is red herring and avoiding my point.

>To call duality illusion is to call the coin itself illusion.
>You can't have the 1 thing without duality.

But I've got time so feel free to avoid confronting the problems with monism.

>>18812863
>>You can't have the 1 thing without duality.

the thing is only a thing from a dualistic point of view

>>18812863
Inherent lack of understanding on your part does *not* constitute a necessity for instruction on my part.
However, here:
http://www.hermetics.org/pdf/Qabalah.pdf

https://mega.nz/#F!AE5yjIqB!y7Vdxdb5pbNsi2O3zyq9KQ
in the second link, find a book called "777 and other Qabalistic Writings"

>>18812881
... but you are correct, as soon as there are things there is dualism. You can't have contents without a container.

>>18812881
It's two things from a dualisic point of view, the thing as his opposite.

>>18812889
The things aren't contained in a dual reality, there's more than two universes.

>>18812881
>the thing is only a thing from a dualistic point of view
Thus there exists a duality within perspective.
>You can't have the 1 thing without duality.

>>18812887
>I don't understand but I think I'm being deep. Here's a book to distract from my lack of ability.
When you can make an actual point to discuss, come on back.

>>18812896
>still missing the point
>You can't have the 1 thing without duality.

Every explanation you give shows the necessity for two or more categories.
thing - not thing
real - illusion
dualism - monism

It's funny to me to think that we're all sitting in our own "rooms" while we are all in the same "room." That's not the best way to put it but it's how it feels or whatever

Gee Rick, reality construction sure is wild
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oR973YSV9MI

>>18812912
I posted those links because, without understanding the theory behind it, you're just going to bitch that it doesn't make sense, so it *must* be illogical, like you've been doing this whole thread.

>>18812918
No one asked for you to vomit your pathetic views on Qabbalah. You're made a vague, useless post here >>18812831 which was off-topic and contributed nothing.

If you read those books, then you should be able to make a point on the topic of the existence of duality, not whether evil exists as a result. but you haven't. Because you can't.

So again, once you can make a point, come on back. Otherwise, fuck off or keep looking stupid.

>>18812935
The whole point is, duality is evil, and the only thing that is evil is duality. That's the point.

>>18812933
>lol, deleting your posts
>>18812933
>you're just going to bitch that it doesn't make sense
I NEVER complained about the content. I complained the content was off-topic, and that you refused to make a coherent point on the subject, preferring instead to shift goalposts into evil. I even responded to your topic, knowing it would derail the thread. You decided that instead of clarifying or defending your idiocy, you would pretend to be smug and pointlessly shitpost.

>>18812936
Declaring duality to be evil necessitates that there be a value that is not-evil: good. It also declares that good and evil are somehow above duality. Yet evil and good are dual in nature.

But YET AGAIN this doesn't address my point.

>To call duality illusion is to call the coin itself illusion.
>You can't have the 1 thing without duality.

You have only confirmed that duality exists.

>>18812954
>deleting my posts
Because I recognized that was no way to talk to another human being, *especially* not from behind a computer. And for that, I apologize. I just get caught up in these arguments sometimes, as if I actually have any skin in the game anyway. Which is easy to do, on an anonymous message board.

>>18812954
>>18812936
No that IS the point. Good and evil are *not* above duality. Evil exists *because* of duality, therefore without duality there is no evil. I can see you don't subscribe to the mystic comprehension of the universe, which is fine, but coming from two different schools of though is not the same thing as one being correct and one being incorrect. That is all.

>>18812985
>Good and evil are *not* above duality.
In which case duality cannot be considered evil, as it entirely contains the concepts of both good and evil.

>Evil exists *because* of duality, therefore without duality there is no evil.
But there IS duality. That's the point of the thread, if you wish to stop trying to derail.

>I can see you don't subscribe to the mystic comprehension of the universe
You can't see shit. I am arguing for a side in a discussion. My beliefs have nothing to do with it.

>but coming from two different schools of though is not the same thing as one being correct and one being incorrect.
So your points are only true if I already believe in them. Convenient.

>>18813005
I'm pretty sure the point of the thread was to ask whether duality was real or an illusion...And I am positing that it is an illusion, while you are positing that it is real. We are coming from two different backgrounds and two distinct schools of thought. Why must you insist that someone who is trying to make a different point than you are is derailing a thread, when they are clearly just trying to answer the question. It's not like this is your personal blog.

>>18813016
>I'm pretty sure the point of the thread was to ask whether duality was real or an illusion
Right. So stop trying to derail the topic with talk about evil.

>And I am positing that it is an illusion
And I have repeated my points multiple times.

>To call duality illusion is to call the coin itself illusion.
>You can't have the 1 thing without duality.

The very model of reality/illusion necessitates duality.

>We are coming from two different backgrounds and two distinct schools of thought.
The difference is I have clarified my points and argued against yours. You made no attempt to clarify yours and instead went on about evil and posted shit like this
>>18812843
>>18812887

>Why must you insist that someone who is trying to make a different point than you are is derailing a thread, when they are clearly just trying to answer the question.
Because you tried to derail into a talk on evil and religious books, then fell off your high horse trying to get away with not defending your position.

It's not like this is your personal blog.

>>18813005
I was merely stating observations based on your arguments. For instance, according to the arguments you have made thus far, you believe reality is only that which you can conceive of with your intellect, and only that which you can perceive with your five senses. There is nothing in the arguments you have made to refute my statement, but thaere is much in the arguments you have made to confirm my statement. Obviously I can only know you insofar as you reveal yourself on an anonymous message board, I I didn't intend to claim any ability beyond that.

>>18813052
>Dude, you keep bringing up the coin, stop derailing the thread by using a coin as an example to give your thesis a working metaphor.

That's the argument you are currently making about talk of good/evil derailing the thread. But I guess That's up to OP to decide. I really only came here to try and respond to OP. I just get sidetracked sometimes. Sorry OP!

OP I have to head out, but check this out if interested: http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/crowley/littleessays/knowledge.htm

>>18813065
>For instance, according to the arguments you have made thus far, you believe reality is only that which you can conceive of with your intellect, and only that which you can perceive with your five senses.
You should try addressing what I said instead of projecting what you fear onto me.

>There is nothing in the arguments you have made to refute my statement
All of my posts have arguments against your statements. You've just ignored them.

>but thaere is much in the arguments you have made to confirm my statement
Is this REALLY what you think entails discussing a topic? Pathetic.

>>18813079
I pointed out the error in the coin analogy than quickly dropped it. The point was made with that analogy so I saw no reason to alter the quote. The general point was made two sentences after that and has also been quoted every time.

>You can't have the 1 thing without duality.

Not a single thing in this thread has been able to describe a monist model without using dualistic terms. The reason is because duality exists.

Declaring duality to be an illusion STILL retains duality, as you have two categories of real and illusion.

Out as well, OP - please read something on the topic that ISN'T thousands of years old.

>>18813111
Personal, much?

>>18813122
>>18813111
Checked.
Could you summarize your points? There's too much bickering for me to read the whole thread, but thanks for contributing

>>18813089
Will read, thanks

>>18813122
My points were mostly based in eastern mysticism, but are well summarized in that essay I posted the link to. Also, Gematria by Aleister Crowley goes into the concept in more depth.

for things to be opposites they have to belong to the same category of thing.

>>18813173
THIS.

it exist but its not all there is.

for example good and evil.
many think one cant exist without the other. but if there was no evil people could still suffer from desease for example, or natural catastrophes. here good can spring into action because of the love to each other, to your fellow human beings