Re: Nondualism

Posted by gepr on Nov 18, 2015; 5:26pm
URL: http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/FW-Meat-tp7586810p7586877.html

On 11/17/2015 05:25 PM, Steve Smith wrote:
> 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?

Yes, that's very close to what I'm questioning.  The nondualism I've been reading about (avoiding the misapplication of more justified types) talks about the different _forms_ of reality being equivalent to every other form.  So, while there's the ability to "unify" in realizing that the different forms are all expressions of the underlying stuff, it's not reducible to the underlying stuff.  It _must_ be experienced at the "leaves".  You can't get to the "trunk" ... indeed, there really is no "trunk".  The "unified" feeling you get during their spiritual experiences is an (temporary) ability to embrace this trunkless bush (which sounds kinda fractal to me).

But what I'm questioning more is why would we expect such an embracing to feel good?  Why can't it be terrifying and still be legitimate "enlightenment"?  My suspicion is that if I went in amongst a bunch of self-described nondualists and said I have such experiences and am always terrified by them, they would (perhaps without saying it) believe I'd gotten it WRONG... that somehow I wasn't doing it right.


On 11/17/2015 06:15 PM, Carl wrote:
> I subscribe to a more pragmatic take - Peace and Happiness are reinforcing side-effects of praxis, the pursuit of clarity of one's process, in whatever realm. P&H are not goals in themselves, worthy or not. The pursuit of them can get in the way. Sort of like optimization ("Don't do it yet..") can.

But, again, why can't horror and discord be reinforcing side-effects of praxis?  Why are those emotions denigrated as things to avoid while P&H are elevated to idealistic positions?

> "It" is not, as the soap people would have us perceive, "All One". Dualism, like politics, is local; there is a term in physics "emergent locality" that I find compelling. What if the only monism is dualism? A gene is only what you can do today with your genome, not a result of some global optimization.

I think "dualism is the only monism" gets at the point at least as well as my metaphor of the trunkless bush ... I dislike the trivial distinction between monism and dualism, though.  Dualism is a relatively trivial case of non-monism.  If this concept holds any truth, there are definitely more than 2 paths, ways to be.  And, although it's tempting to claim that going from 1 to 2 is more significant than, say, 2 to 3 ... or from 1e100 to its successor, that misses the forest for too much focus on the trees.

The question I'm asking, though, is why would we think it's a Good Thing to think beyond any given scope?  Not only intellectually, but emotionally.  Why would we expect it to feel good or be a pleasant feeling?

On 11/17/2015 10:48 PM, Rich Murray wrote:
> you can gaze this way in all directions at once, and also from ever vaster
> to ever tinier distances --
>
> if a notable phase change of awareness happens, enjoy it, and gently seek
> to allow more, and more...

The former paragraph is very different, I think, from the latter paragraph.  I'm _very_ attracted to the idea of swapping from one leaf to another leaf on the trunkless bush.  I've done that sort of thing for as long as I can remember.  But changing scopes is a different thing.  I do that, too.  But it's more sporadic and has more to do with what I do and don't eat than whatever ideology is coursing through the gel in my head.

Flitting from one locale to another (phase changes) seems appropriately tied to emotions.  E.g. putting yourself into the shoes of an impoverished Syrian with a wife and 3 children to take care of rightly induces a bit of anxiety, rather than pleasure.

But when we think of enlarging our scope, from our mundane little world of, say, paying bills or mowing the lawn, up to the scale of a comet flying through the solar system, or the center of a galactic whirl eating its steady diet, we tend to associate that with WONDER, and AWE... all those Good Things the mystics yap about constantly.  Why can't enlarging the scope cause fear and loathing?  And why would those emotions be any less legitimate?



--
⊥ glen ⊥

============================================================
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