Matt continues to read Martin, and not for the first time I marvel at his endurance. This time the subject is dualism, which as I understand it means that mind and matter are two distinct things, i.e. the mind is not the brain.-(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.'-We have to be very careful about criticizing ideas that have come to us second-hand, as it were, so I can only comment on what Matt has presented us with. The first three items are in this same vein ... an attempt to prove dualism mathematically, because as we all know, an idea of something is not the thing itself. The fourth item is at least a bit more to the point: "to know your own existence, you need an immediate duality: yourself and seeing yourself." This repeats as pseudo-philosophically-scientifically as it can something which again we all know ... namely, that we are conscious of ourselves. What it doesn't tell us is whether material produces consciousness or is used by consciousness, and that is what the whole question of dualism is about. We don't know, and playing games with one and two gets us precisely nowhere.

Most of the players here have had their say. I'll jump in here. 
> (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.'
> -His argument here isn't simple mathematics (such as 1 + 1 = 2), it's an argument that we can only distinguish between numbers of things by relation of one set of things, to another set of things. Though his absurdity is in stating that 'one' is only knowable in relation to 'two.' I agree with the rest of us, that 'one' is clearly more fundamental; Russell and Whitehead's proof was such that 'twoness' was derived by looking at objects that had a disparate and abstract commonality; 'twoness.' The only part where his argument has any traction is that it is difficult to determine the exact progression of how we humans think of numbers; do we really only understand 'one' first, and then 'two' by looking at two 'ones' in close proximity? -It is weak traction however; the nature of how we reason with numbers makes up for this deficiency. -> (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.
> -I have a little bit of problem with Balance's point here; nothing is literally nothing. In this there is a binary distinction of existence and nonexistence. "Zero is a placeholder." In some twist, balance has hit upon one argument that defeats Leibniz's question of "Why is there something rather than nothing?" It beats my 'non-question' argument by simply pointing out that 'nothing' in itself means exactly that. Nothing. -> (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.-Here, he would simply do better by talking to an actual Zen Buddhist. They do have a denial of duality, but the denial of 'oneness' is such that 'oneness' itself is a mental construct; a delusion. It seems paradoxical, but there is only one existence, one universe, one consciousness in Buddhism, but this oneness is only approachable through experience--not by deductive reasoning or language. To Quote Nietzsche "You can't think--a God." Neither can you think yourself to Nibbana.

--
\"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.\"