http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/FW-Meat-tp7586810p7586861.html
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
Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College