Australian Politics Forum - Eradicating dualism

Yadda

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 21583
A cat with a view

Re: Eradicating dualism
Reply #15 - Apr 12^th, 2013 at 10:28am

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Apr 11^th, 2013 at 1:18pm:

Isn't Christianity the attempt to become united with god, thus collapsing the distinction between man's ego and god's will?

Morning Mist,

I honestly believe that; "collapsing the distinction between man's ego and god's will"
, is way, way, beyond our human grasp/capability, 'intellectually'.
[...even though many of us would consider ourselves 'capable', if we 'applied' ourselves to that 'problem'.]

I believe that many Christians may present Christianity in that way [...as Christianity, being a means to 'come to God'. i.e. as a means for man [i.e. on his own terms], to be able to approach a holy God.].

But i do not believe that 'Christianity' is 'attempting' to resolve the 'high' existential questions that man has, about himself [...not on merely an intellectual level anyway!].
[i believe that Christianity, is [unfortunately] a very worldly church]

Because i don't believe that, in this form [being spirit beings locked within these clay 'prisons'], we have a capacity to fully understand our place [here] or our purpose [here].

I believe that it was always intended [by our 'source'/creator], that the focus of [i.e. our focus, in] our lives, would always be 'in the world'. [...so that we could make many errors, and then, come [ourselves] to meditate upon those errors. i.e. i believe that this life, is a 'fixed game', ref that Billy Joel lyric again. "We're only human. We're supposed to make mistakes."]

I don't believe that [in this dense physical form] we have a capacity to even nearly understand what 'God' is, or the purpose of 'God's will'.

i.e.
How can what is flesh, comprehend what is spirit ? [i do not believe that it [we] can, ever]

There is a spirit realm [i believe, Wink

].

But [i believe that, intentionally] we normally have no perception of it.

So how can [what is] flesh be 'reconciled'? with what is spirit, when we [i.e. the consciousness that we are] does not even understand > WHAT < 'spirit' is ?

I don't understand what 'spirit' is.

Saying this [above], i do believe that our 'source'/creator does desire [and does hope], that mankind [individually] will meditate upon his [i.e. our] existence and its possible purpose.

+++

Psalms 14:2
The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God.

Psalms 69:32
The humble shall see this, and be glad: and your heart shall live that seek God.

Speaking about the days which man's spends here, in this life....

Ecclesiastes 3:10
I have seen the travail, which God hath given to the sons of men to be exercised in it.
11 He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end.
12 I know that there is no good in them, but for a man to rejoice, and to do good in his life.
13 And also that every man should eat and drink, and enjoy the good of all his labour, it is the gift of God.

p.s.
I do not 'believe in' Christian church structures, nor, do i 'believe in' what 'Christianity' is, today.

I believe in God, i trust in God [blindly?].

I trust in God, because i firmly believe that God [my 'source'/creator] has my best interests at heart.

For myself, that 'circumstance', is not difficult to believe.

Back to top

"....And he said unto him, If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead."
Luke 16:31

IP Logged

Postmodern Trendoid III

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 10259
Gender: male

Re: Eradicating dualism
Reply #16 - Apr 25^th, 2013 at 11:38am

I think the central problem preventing the eradication of dualism is auxiliary verbs and/or copulas. These are the words that link the subject to the predicate. If you take away auxiliary verbs and copulas then the distinction between subject and predicate collapses: The subject and predicate become one.

Auxiliary verbs: is, are, be, has, have, can, should, will, might.

Hmmm...

Back to top

IP Logged

Soren Gold Member Offline Posts: 25654 Gender:	Re: Eradicating dualism Reply #17 - Apr 25^th, 2013 at 9:27pm Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Apr 11^th, 2013 at 11:47am: Let me know what you think of this argument. Philosophy, and all modern thinking, is divided into subject and object: Dualism. Simplistic.
Back to top	IP Logged

Postmodern Trendoid III Gold Member Offline Posts: 10259 Gender:	Re: Eradicating dualism Reply #18 - Apr 25^th, 2013 at 10:05pm The part you quoted is a statement and not necessarily the argumentative part of my post.
Back to top	IP Logged

Sappho

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 1406
Gender: female

Re: Eradicating dualism
Reply #19 - Apr 25^th, 2013 at 10:23pm

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Apr 11^th, 2013 at 11:47am:

Let me know what you think of this argument.

Philosophy, and all modern thinking, is divided into subject and object: Dualism.

The subject thinks and acts and this thinking and acting is an object. For example, "The man washes the car." The man = subject; washes the car = object. Or, "The man thinks he's good." The man = subject; thinks he's good = object.

Eradicating dualism is a grammatical issue. Erase the subject from language and only speak of objects, or more precisely, predicates, then the boundary line between man and the world disappears. The subject, if we could ever speak of one, is always in the predicate. Everything, then, becomes "action" or "doing". Language, then, would have to be reformed so nouns and adjectives are eradicated, and verbs and adverbs become dominant.

I'm not actually sure what is wrong with the object that it should be removed from language.

Also... In the sentence; The man washes the car. I can see an actor acting apon an object, which means there are three things going on (subject, action, object) not two (subject and object).

I wonder what language would look like and the extent to which ontology is improved if the object is removed.

Back to top

"Love is a cunning weaver of fantasies and fables."

IP Logged

Sir Spot of Borg

Gold Member

Offline

WE ARE BORG

Posts: 26499
Australia

Re: Eradicating dualism
Reply #20 - Apr 26^th, 2013 at 5:40am

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 5:11am:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Apr 11^th, 2013 at 11:47am:

Let me know what you think of this argument.

Philosophy, and all modern thinking, is divided into subject and object: Dualism.

The subject thinks and acts and this thinking and acting is an object. For example, "The man washes the car." The man = subject; washes the car = object. Or, "The man thinks he's good." The man = subject; thinks he's good = object.

Eradicating dualism is a grammatical issue. Erase the subject from language and only speak of objects, or more precisely, predicates, then the boundary line between man and the world disappears. The subject, if we could ever speak of one, is always in the predicate. Everything, then, becomes "action" or "doing". Language, then, would have to be reformed so nouns and adjectives are eradicated, and verbs and adverbs become dominant.

Why would you want to eradicate dualism?

SOB

Back to top

Whaaaaaah!
I'm a
Moron!

- edited by some unethical admin - you think its funny? - its a slippery slope

IP Logged

Postmodern Trendoid III

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 10259
Gender: male

Re: Eradicating dualism
Reply #21 - Apr 26^th, 2013 at 9:50am

Sappho wrote on Apr 25^th, 2013 at 10:23pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Apr 11^th, 2013 at 11:47am:

Let me know what you think of this argument.

Philosophy, and all modern thinking, is divided into subject and object: Dualism.

The subject thinks and acts and this thinking and acting is an object. For example, "The man washes the car." The man = subject; washes the car = object. Or, "The man thinks he's good." The man = subject; thinks he's good = object.

Eradicating dualism is a grammatical issue. Erase the subject from language and only speak of objects, or more precisely, predicates, then the boundary line between man and the world disappears. The subject, if we could ever speak of one, is always in the predicate. Everything, then, becomes "action" or "doing". Language, then, would have to be reformed so nouns and adjectives are eradicated, and verbs and adverbs become dominant.

I'm not actually sure what is wrong with the object that it should be removed from language.

Also... In the sentence; The man washes the car. I can see an actor acting apon an object, which means there are three things going on (subject, action, object) not two (subject and object).

I wonder what language would look like and the extent to which ontology is improved if the object is removed.

I am basically just experimenting with language. Given that we think in words, if we change the way we conceive of them, then our own thinking would be altered in the process. Most thinking separates man from the world. Scientific thinking does this as it sees man as an atom surrounded by external, independent objects. By collapsing the distinction between the subject and object, man is then never separated from what he does: He is the world and the world is him; all is natural; all is an unfolding of nature. It's kind of like pantheism, but heavily influenced by the Romantics.

Anyway, to answer your sentence query. Grammaticians usually place the action and object together - they call it a predicate.

Back to top

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: Eradicating dualism
Reply #22 - Apr 26^th, 2013 at 11:06am

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Apr 26^th, 2013 at 9:50am:

Anyway, to answer your sentence query. Grammaticians usually place the action and object together - they call it a predicate.

This is correct - and so original outline is incorrect, in particular, when you say 'the man thinks he is good'. Here the subject and the object are both 'man'. 'thinks he is good' is the predicate, 'he' is a pronoun for man, ie man and he refer to the same thing. So subject = object.
No dualism.

Anyway, you can't 'eradicate' (a tendentious and arrogant choice of word in this context) dualism not only because it is built into language, but because it is a lived experience (and that is why it is built into language).

Asking to 'eradicate' dualism is like asking to eradicate experience.

Back to top

IP Logged

Postmodern Trendoid III

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 10259
Gender: male

Re: Eradicating dualism
Reply #23 - Apr 26^th, 2013 at 12:17pm

Soren wrote on Apr 26^th, 2013 at 11:06am:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Apr 26^th, 2013 at 9:50am:

Anyway, to answer your sentence query. Grammaticians usually place the action and object together - they call it a predicate.

This is correct - and so original outline is incorrect, in particular, when you say 'the man thinks he is good'. Here the subject and the object are both 'man'. 'thinks he is good' is the predicate, 'he' is a pronoun for man, ie man and he refer to the same thing. So subject = object.
No dualism.

Anyway, you can't 'eradicate' (a tendentious and arrogant choice of word in this context) dualism not only because it is built into language, but because it is a lived experience (and that is why it is built into language).

Asking to 'eradicate' dualism is like asking to eradicate experience.

And what of the object "good"?
Also, the repetition of the pronoun twice in the sentence - man and he - represents a separation between the subject and the object.

The man (subject) thinks he (now refers to himself in the third person, hence an object) is good (an external property; also an object).

If there were no distinction between subject and object, then different terms wouldn't be used to describe these parts of the sentence.

Back to top

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: Eradicating dualism
Reply #24 - Apr 26^th, 2013 at 4:04pm

You seem confused.

"The man thinks he is good" - the man is not referring to himself. You are referring to the man. If the man was to refer to himself, he would say 'I think I am good'. He describes a quality, not an object.

Dualism is introduced by you, the speaker describe what the man thinks about himself. The objectification occurs in you because you are talking about another man, not yourself. There are two of you. This is a natural experience of dualism and cannot be eradicated.You are looking at the man and talking about him - ie you are objectifying him.

When he is thinking about himself and describes himself he is not engaging in dualism because he is talking about himself - one and the same man.

Back to top

IP Logged

Soren

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 25654
Gender: male

Re: Eradicating dualism
Reply #25 - Apr 27^th, 2013 at 8:59am

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Apr 26^th, 2013 at 12:17pm:

The man (subject) thinks he (now refers to himself in the third person, hence an object) is good (an external property; also an object).

You don't seem to realise that in your example the man is not speaking. You are speaking. You are reporting what the man thinks. You objectify him because he is not you but other than you.
As I said, if he spoke, he would say 'I think I am good'.
There are no two people in that sentence just because the word 'I' occurs twice.

And good is not an object. Only transitive verbs can have an object which is a noun or a noun phrase. Good is a descriptive (adjective).

Back to top

IP Logged

Sappho Gold Member Offline OzPolitic Posts: 1406 Gender:	Re: Eradicating dualism Reply #26 - Apr 27^th, 2013 at 10:01am Well.... thank you for clearing that up. For myself, I think Soren has the right of it, a subjectively experiencing being can't be objective. Perhaps it could be further expanded to argue that a self aware being cannot be objective when engaging introspection because we cannot go beyond qualia and axioms.
Back to top	"Love is a cunning weaver of fantasies and fables." IP Logged

Postmodern Trendoid III

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 10259
Gender: male

Re: Eradicating dualism
Reply #27 - Apr 27^th, 2013 at 10:07am

Food for thought.

If an object is used in the sentence, then a division seems clear. If it is a compliment, then the division doesn't seem so clear.

The second "I" in the sentence "I think I am good" needs to be removed so the speaking doesn't refer to himself in the third person. "I am good" goes some of the way to removing a dualism.

Back to top

« Last Edit: Apr 27^th, 2013 at 11:33am by Postmodern Trendoid III »

IP Logged

Postmodern Trendoid III

Gold Member

Offline

Posts: 10259
Gender: male

Re: Eradicating dualism
Reply #28 - Apr 27^th, 2013 at 10:17am

Sappho wrote on Apr 27^th, 2013 at 10:01am:

Well.... thank you for clearing that up. Undecided

For myself, I think Soren has the right of it, a subjectively experiencing being can't be objective. Perhaps it could be further expanded to argue that a self aware being cannot be objective when engaging introspection because we cannot go beyond qualia and axioms.

I think from a purely existential point of view the dualism issue is resolved as long as every experience is new - kind of like a continually created life that never repeats: where every moment is as fresh as the first.

Back to top

IP Logged

Sappho

Gold Member

Offline

OzPolitic

Posts: 1406
Gender: female

Re: Eradicating dualism
Reply #29 - Apr 27^th, 2013 at 10:32am

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Apr 27^th, 2013 at 10:17am:

Sappho wrote on Apr 27^th, 2013 at 10:01am:

Well.... thank you for clearing that up. Undecided

For myself, I think Soren has the right of it, a subjectively experiencing being can't be objective. Perhaps it could be further expanded to argue that a self aware being cannot be objective when engaging introspection because we cannot go beyond qualia and axioms.

I think from a purely existential point of view the dualism issue is resolved as long as every experience is new - kind of like a continually created life that never repeats: where every moment is as fresh as the first.

So the infant becomes subjectified through repetition? That makes sense... however, the inclination for repetitive behaviour needs also to be removed if objectivity is to dominate.

Can't think of a single thing that does not repeat its behaviour, can you? Not even exotic matter can fit the requirements of objectivity... since its very nature is to repeat certain behaviours which humanity study and predict.

Back to top

"Love is a cunning weaver of fantasies and fables."

IP Logged