deCypher said:

(And incidentally anybody who sincerely does not believe in this dichotomy is welcome to send me a check for all their wealth if they don't believe there's any difference between myself and them!)

---

Quote:

I claim instead that the view of becoming One with the cosmos is merely but one perspective out of many and that the view hailing from recognition of one's Ego is equally as valid.

---

Quote:

The Tao neither is nor is not; To imply that one view is correct while the other is wrong is to remain ontologically biased.

---

Being and nothingness, is on the other hand, what I understand to be strictly either/or statement. Something or nothing, is one way or not. This (being) should not be confused with the multiplicity, the drama or maya of existence.

A little while ago, I became aware of "metaphysics" as another necessary part a scheme that sounds similar to what you describe. Its just a way of understanding things, (its a metaphysic itself), but it is useful that way.

I realized that every time you conceive of duality, you are necessarily implying the third point.

One way of putting it; animalism is duality, but that is all it is. Animals merely exist as reactionary to the dualistic matrix. Humanity on the other hand, is at once part of duality (the human-animal), and beyond this. We must assume he is in a certain sense beyond, to perceive the dimension of duality. The Humane, conceptual world; is at once within and without this dimension that is referred to. I make no bones about this paradox, this human mystery.

Humanity is not only referential, but self referential, which is the simultaneous birth of self and other.

this self/other, is the third point of trinity - the consciousness, being-in-itself, is the third point that recognizes duality.

Yet this third point is also only understood as a reflection of the physical realm. No doubt, as you say, we truly get a seperate point from self-awareness, but the self only arises in relation to the other. (This is Jean Paul Sartre) Because it is tao or not, being or nothingness, this is conceived as a single point. Nonetheless, it is also kept in mind that our concept of self is strictly referential, or perhaps more appropriately, reflective of otherness (and presumably vice-versa). Self and other, they necessarily arise as one, yet as two.

The physical (animalistic/sensational) paradox is mind and matter, the metaphysical (humane/emotive) paradox is of self and other.

Duality and "duality" ("" = implication/signification)

Both arising as one but as two. Some might say that in the metaphysic, this situation is about love. Some say that in the physical realm is about sex. Maybe this has something to do with what you are talking about at the end of the post, and certainly I believe it is the relation of animal and human nature. But you lose me completely after the self and other.

I would say it is simply coming full circle to the existential self. It is how we understand the world, while our emotions and sensations are the ride we get. So returning to the terms of validity, there is nothing necessarily loving or spiteful, painful or blissful, yet presumably in-being, in matrix, it is one or the other - either/or - being or nothingness.

"Consciousness is a being, the nature of which is to be conscious of the nothingness (my note: validity) of its being."
-Jean Paul Sartre

This was his thesis for "Being and Nothingness", which based on the way you relate concepts, I you might enjoy. It is essential to my philosophy. I'm pretty sure I have thrown the recommendation your way a few times anyway; but really, Check it out!

Anyways, I found your post thought provoking, although I can see that we might disagree on a lot.

...Also I have no idea how much sense I am making.



anyhow, good post.

Zanthius said:

I am different from you, but still our function should be to serve the whole.

---

daytripper23 said:

Yet this third point is also only understood as a reflection of the physical realm. No doubt, as you say, we truly get a seperate point from self-awareness, but the self only arises in relation to the other. (This is Jean Paul Sartre) Because it is tao or not, being or nothingness, this is conceived as a single point. Nonetheless, it is also kept in mind that our concept of self is strictly referential, or perhaps more appropriately, reflective of otherness (and presumably vice-versa). Self and other, they necessarily arise as one, yet as two.

---

daytripper23 said:

Both arising as one but as two. Some might say that in the metaphysic, this situation is about love. Some say that in the physical realm is about sex. Maybe this has something to do with what you are talking about at the end of the post, and certainly I believe it is the relation of animal and human nature. But you lose me completely after the self and other.

---

daytripper23 said:

"Consciousness is a being, the nature of which is to be conscious of the nothingness (my note: validity) of its being."
-Jean Paul Sartre

---

Lion said:

However, when the Madhyamika philosophers examined phenomena, everything seemed to disappear and they could find nothing. They were not satisfied by the explanation that God created everything or that tiny atoms existed, and they reasoned that it was impossible for subjective mind to exist if objects did not exist, as mind and objects are as interdependently inseparable as are right and left. So, if there was no external matter, there could be no mind. The Madhyamika concluded, after a very scrupulous examination, that there was nothing, ultimately, that could be clung to as really existent.

---

The first Buddhist nihilists? 

Icelander said:

Ego is ignorance, there is no way around this

Without your ego you couldn't make it alive across the highway. Ego is just personality structure. It can act in skillful or unskillful ways.

Personalisms such as I really don't think you know wtf you are talking about. are not allowed in this forum.

---

A personalism is directed at the person and not what that person says. Had I said "I don't think you know what you are talking about here" what would your response have been??? (not giving me an official warning I'm guessing)

Because I choose to use colorful language not directed at the person it ain't a fucking personalism in my book.

deCypher said:

Speaking from a societal perspective, absolutely.  Speaking from the individualistic perspective, I should be concerned solely with my own gain, which may or may not involve serving the whole.

---

deCypher said:

Right now, I am consciously separate from the rest of the Universe.  Sure, I can see, hear, touch, taste, and smell as means of perceiving other bodies in motion.  But fundamentally I am capable of making that rational, dualist distinction between I and not-I and sense both equally as well.  My pains versus your pains.  My mind versus the external world.  (And incidentally anybody who sincerely does not believe in this dichotomy is welcome to send me a check for all their wealth if they don't believe there's any difference between myself and them!)  So I say relish in your separation from the Cosmos.  Rejoice in the fundamental Pride of the Ego, and revel in its solitary pleasures; explore alternatives to the trite Eastern philosophies that defame our singular consciousness.  For you are neither your Ego nor not your Ego, and to remember the existence of both paths (and hopefully choose the middle way) is priceless.

---

Chronic777 said:

Im all for 'neither this nor that' Tao attitude, throw away both opposites & what remains, get rid of egoless mind & get rid of egoic mind, what remains?
Pure mind free of concepts of ego or non-ego

---

Zanthius said:

I don't have much desires, so I cannot get hurt as easily just from not having my desires fulfilled. So I think I am emotionally better off than people with a lot of egoistic desires.

---

Quote:

Jethro Tull said: However, relishing your illusory separation from the Cosmos is falling into ignorance.  By embracing solitary pleasures and the ego, you are trying to hold onto something that is in a constant state of flux.

---

redgreenvines said:

ego and body are similar, you don't put them away.

---