The Case for Dualism (The nature of a \'Creator\')

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Saturday, October 23, 2010, 14:51 (5144 days ago)

As I continue to read Martin, I am sometimes astounded by his points, and sometimes am driven to think him farcical. However, as I am one who remembers well that many truths are before their time I'm going to reprint Martin's main case for dualism here for the forum to view/critique. I will offer my own after you have offered yours; I do not wish to shape the debate too early. -(1) For let us consider. It is true that there cannot be a notion of 'two' if there is not a notion of 'one.' But how can there be an idea of 'one,' if there is not an idea of 'two'? Surely 'one' as a notion exists only in opposition to 'two.'-(2) If unity is a simple and all-embracing 'pure unity,' then even an idea of such a unity is impossible, for the idea itself of the unity is separate from the unity. 'Two' has to be thinkable before you can think 'One.' -(3) It might be argued that the basic distinction is between 'non' and 'one'--or between 'nothing' and 'something,' as if between 'Yes' and 'No.' But any distinction implies twoness. And the distinction between what is and what is not is a distinction between two. Thus the moment that initial moment of realization arises: 'I am,' it follows that there are two: what is, and what is not. The very notion of existence entails the notion of twoness.-(4) Besides, existence is always in relation; there is no such thing as singular existence. 'It is,' we say. But 'It is' indicates two things, namely namely the 'something' that exists, and that something's 'existing.' Moreover, without one's being oneself 'two,' one cannot even have relation / communication with oneself. To know your own existence, you need an immediate duality: yourself and seeing yourself. 'Zen says,' according to Wilber, 'that spirit is "not-two, not one."' He means by this that spirit is not a unity, but rather a non-duality. Without knowing your own existence, you are not conscious of it, consequently the initial step is not a oneness, but a duality appearing out of nothing, that is a consciousness of existence appearing out of unconsciousness, a light appearing out of darkness.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"