Re: [FRIAM] Nondualism

[Steve Smith]

Nick - I do agree with your definition of the general concept of dualism (vs monism) but I think the specific subspecies in (apparent) question is most relevant.   I think what Glen is referencing (I missed Rich's quoted paragraph the first time) is the _expression_ of non-duality that presumably keeps us from having immediate access to our direct perceptions/experiences.   In my understanding, it is the insertion of the ego that causes this.  The ego is ALL about dualism as far as I can see.   Self-Other, ME-everything else... More to the point, I think Glen is questioning the pervading idea that in the process of reducing this "distance" that we will naturally find more peace and happiness, or even that seeking peace and happiness is a worthy (or reasonable?) goal? - Steve Steve, Glen,   I think that dualism is just the believe that everything-that-is is of one kind, only.  There is only one kind of “stuff” in the world.  Decartes was a mind-body dualist.  Peirce was an experience-monist.    N   Nicholas S. Thompson Emeritus Professor of Psychology and Biology Clark University http://home.earthlink.net/~nickthompson/naturaldesigns/   From: Friam [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Steve Smith Sent: Tuesday, November 17, 2015 3:52 PM To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group <friam@redfish.com> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] Nondualism   Glen - You are being uncharacteristically imprecise (I think). If you are attributing (non)dualism to the province of Spiritualists, then I point you to the many uses of Dualism in: Science: Subject-Object observation or multiple conflicting models (e.g. wave/particle duality) Moral: Good V. Evil Theological: Creator/Creation Ontological: Yin/Yang Cartesian:Materialism/Consciousness Wiccan: god/goddess Cognitive: Mind/Brain ...etc Are you arguing *against* monism, against the idea that everything is part of a single thing (e.g. the Universe, the Multiverse)? I think I hear that your task is with what you call "New Thought" religions and in particular their alleged idea that dualism is the source of suffering and the related assumption that suffering is bad?   As a good Calvanist (I'm guessing a good New Englander like Nick has his own dose of this) I tend to embrace suffering when it comes my way (and feel it is inevitable that it will) if not outright seek it (nope, no Penitentes in my family tree that I know of!). I find that many "New Thought" philosophies/religions seem to adopt (adapt/corrupt?) the Buddhist notions of suffering (Dukkha) which arises from various sources:  Aging/Illness/Death; Clinging to the illusion of no-change; Clinging to the illusions of identity/existence. Without being a proselyte of any particular form New Thought , I would suggest that what they are saying (the core message, not what the fringe and the wannabes are saying) is that a great deal of what we experience as suffering (fear, anxiety, anger, loathing, etc.) is rooted in the illusion of a strong self-other duality.   I believe this is roughly the dichotomy (speaking of dualism) between those in "the West" who are trying to respond to the increased scope and magnitude of Islamic State (and similar) violence with angry violence in return and those who are trying to understand how these people and their violence are part of a bigger pattern that includes us.    In your terminology, the Dualist sees IS, etc. only as a threat to be hammered back into the ground (think Whack-a-Mole) while the NonDualist perhaps sees IS, etc. as a "natural" response to the conditions the participants have been put under.    The Dualist, despite suffering acute fear-of-other may well be more-happy than the NonDualist who does not have the benefit of a "simple answer" who must suffer *some of* the same fear as the Dualist as well as the angst of guilt (perhaps) for recognizing one's part in the larger pattern yielding the acute symptoms underway. That said, I've been irritated by "New Age" thinkers from my earliest awareness of them for their propensity to co-opt the language of science for their purposes, as well as replacing (IMO) healthy optimism with polyanna wishful thinking.   My own personal philosophy (despite my own Libertarian roots) includes the belief that if I can relax into non-dualism, "I" will not only be "infinitely happy", "I" will cease to exist.   There is a bit of a paradox in this, as as much as "I" would like to exchange my various modes of anxiety and distress for the calmness and "just so" ness of the nondualistic perspective, such an exchange would ultimately mean the elimination of the "I" who is contemplating/willing that change.   I hope I have done something more than just stir the cauldron bubbling in your head. - Steve OK.  I've had some chance to read a bit about this spiritualist concept of nondualism.  It's much too spiritual for me, since I don't believe in spirits or anything of the sort. >8^) But one question came to the front everytime I tried to read about it:  Why do all these New Thought religions insist that their religious experiences always be _good_ or pleasant?  They always talk about being at peace or "at one with the universe" or whatnot.  I'm not a big fan of Christianity.  But at least, there, when you encounter an angel, it can be very frightening, almost Lovecraftian... and there's all this lore surrounding not being able to look God in the face and such.  I've had what I could easily call religious experiences (like the way time slowed to a crawl right before a car crash when I was in high school ... or the near catatonic state induced by Catholic Mass as a kid) and I'd say that maybe 2/3 of them were good or pleasant.  The rest were frightening or anxious, especially the "gestalt-busting" ones that caused me to rethink my whole world view. This is why the New Thought religions, including nondualism, seem like advertisements for multi-level marketing schemes... like Amway.  Become one of us and you, too, can own 3 mansions and a yaht!  They're only one or a few steps more interesting than things like the "prosperity gospel" (http://www.ourladyofperpetualexemption.com/). Why would religious experience necessarily be pleasant or good?  (Especially as a former libertarian, the thought of becoming one with he universe is horrifying... It's socialist propoganda!  It's heat death!  Run!  Run towards your perverted individuality!) On 11/02/2015 04:17 PM, Rich Murray wrote: I enjoyed Friam for a few years -- glad to see a few others have ventured into expanded awareness explorations, like Zen -- shared paranormal experience is core to conveying mysticism -- this is becoming more prominent in recent years with the proliferation of free video teaching, crafted to induce expanded states in the viewers -- just Google "nonduality" ... the style is to deepen the real-time process of intimate communication about moment by moment raw experience, while agreeing on shared positive goals -- this leads to viewpoints and vistas that completely shift and expand human experience beyond the usual limits...     ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com

============================================================
FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College
to unsubscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com