I don’t mean to be dualist nor neuotic with this article, i am only flawing dualism and explaining a bit a necessary fork of it we need to develop with the example of how to define Love as an example of it.

Let’s go first with the criticism.

The dualist trend affirms that supervitalism is a new age hylozoism with the most arrogant and antropocentric philosophy ever phrased.

Dualism has its own stand to show so (it calls it “empiric rigour”), which always brings us to an ugly end of the road as classic philosophy and science show it very well:

Conciousness i don’t what it is, but is not matter, and matter is not alive because it hasn’t a DNA (that noone can says where it come from or how was it formed).

For us the scientific intelectual dualists, we call the DNA we can’t process how it functions as “Thrash DNA”, there is some Trash in the brain too, and overall it, there is lots of dark matter, dark energy and infinite paralell universes.

What an arrogant and ugly way to call the necessary unknowables we have to have!

Apart of dualism really being the more arrogant philosophical base possible (read more, here), it is even more curious to see why antropocentricism, solipsism, socialism and else trends have failed in the same dualist selfcentered trap that eliminates the necessary connectedness at all stages of life (the observer is always the observers….).

There is mesh in nature, even within atoms, but we, by attaching to the logic of dualism, don’t even mesh the concepts we use for reasoning, as if we and our conceptualization were something that is over nature and is not necessarily connected through a mesh as nature is. So we should try to be a bit more coherent than that:

We say: This is love!, but we will get further nature by saying:

This is love, but more accurately speaking: This connectedness is one of the true loves, a lovely truth, a feared love, a loved fear, a wise happiness and happy wisdom that we finally call love.

This definition is formed merging the opposite (fear), the complementary (true) and their couple companion concepts (joy and wisdom) in a triad where Love will be a Tao.

The same we did to the concept of Love, we should do with whatever other concept. And there should be a point when we would have a minimum conceptual framework for the View of the Whole (See Floves), because despite the big complexity of nature, it also wants to express itself from simplified forms that could scale up.

This is nothing new for nature while it has many new news for the rationals of us.

Just try to reason it this way, dualism is the last-last bit of it all, just the less important detail in the expression of what a truth or love is, only one little final bit (as time linearity also is) which is still necessary overall.

Easier said: Dualism is the natural challenge for reasoning to overcome while living with.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.