|
Tim and Don,
I tried several times the texts of both of you
(especially Tim's first) and I am still not sure that I got it.
"Going
back to the quote Judith gave from Life Itself, the dualism between self
and not self is "the most fundamental dualism, which all others presuppose."
I find it unfortunate that RR used the word
'dualism', not some equivocal (!) synonymous metaphor expressing our innate
disposition for reductionism: to view the world in our models, which the mind
can handle. What be a 'non-dualism' in this sense? the undifferentiated wholism,
the immordial grits. (oops: I formulated the negation of what is antedated in
primordial).
It is not true, wholeness IS differentiated,
while interconnected.
That does not mean it is parcellized or
partitioned. We are in a construct where strong defining characteristics should
be avoided, before we learn more about it.
If "I" feel my thoughts (experience, views,
etc.) more relevant than the gravitational surge of a supernova, it
is not dualism.
I tried to touch on that in a 'corrective' paper
to my KJF article (Networks of Networks) on 'influence' - readable in my
website:
http://pages.prodigy.net/jamikes/influence.html
- indeed only an attempt to raise these ideas.
In common sense one thinks in 'dualism' the
mind-body folly, or Descartes' extension - soul defensiveness. What we talk
about is - as Don remarked - "requiring two or more models, descriptions or
presentations" more: unlimited. He expressed this precisely in the 3-part Tao
style circumscript.
I raised my voice against the formal dualism of
"here I am and look around at 'them', the environment" but in accordance with
the above RR quote, "I" am thinking for myself in my models - about a
subtly differentiated wholeness, where "I" feel like closest. No grits. We are still 'our selves'. 1st persons.
And no solipsism, feeling like the wholeness by
myself, undifferentiatedly.
Tim, you wrote:
"So, I consider [ - ] a partition of the whole
into self and not-self....[later[ so I have partitioned the world into that
which is self and that which is not-self. "
---SAIS WHO?---
I am not ashamed of being my self, even if
I have a hard time to describe it. But I don't 'partition' it, simply
trying to differentiate aspects.
Finally in the multiplicity (Don) I feel the word
'dualism' insufficient. (Like 'bifurcation' from unlimited choices.
)
|