Guest guest Posted October 11, 2001 Report Share Posted October 11, 2001 Dan, > The thinking you've expressed below evidences a core dualism that runs > throughout: the opposition of a dualistic perspective to a nondualistic > perspective. > There are at least two senses of " dualism " . There is the pejorative, spiritually incorrect, meaning that I said I believe is more clearly called a dichotomy = opposing two things that are really interrelated. The other sense of " dualism " is non-pejorative and merely means that one has drawn a distinction. It is in this sense that I have indeed drawn a distinction between a dualistic perspective and a nondualistic one (using " dualism " in the pejorative sense). Since I find the distinction useful, and you have said nothing to make me think otherwise, I openly cop a plea of guilty to this innocent dualism. The dualism into which I thought you had fallen was the non-innocent, pejorative sort. But your clarification below indicates that that does not represent your thinking. > Further, it confuses an absolute position with a relative position. Absolutely > there are no dichotomies -- relatively speaking, one conceptual entity can > indeed be considered to act in ways that are counter to the interests of > another conceptual entity. Otherwise, there couldn't be legal or financial > systems. To say this entire discussion of entities and interests is > conceptual, relative, and not " ultimately real " , would, indeed, be accurate. > > To think that corporations operate for the good by making profits for > individuals (and leaving out of the equation other individuals exploited, > long-term consequences of short-term gains, animals which are harmed, > ecosystems thrown into imbalance, etc.) may be viewed as naive or cynically > distorted. Either way, it's not a complex view at all. > Fortunately, it is not my view, nor is it implied in anything I said. I merely noted that corporations involve complex relationships among people and that you seemed to be saying that they were necessarily opposed to the common good. From what you say above, we seem to be in general agreement about the interrelatedness of corporations, but would probably disagree on the net desirability of their effects on the world. [snip] > So, indeed, it is this very silence that shows the lie involved in the > corporate structures designed to produce profits for individuals (by gaining > an advantage over other individuals and positing the use of nonhuman > populations as well as ecosystems for the advantages of individuals) ... > > To say these systems are oriented around fictional entities doesn't mean they > are bad or wrong or shouldn't exist. Far from it. > You say there is a " lie involved in the corporate structures " and then seem to suggest that " they are [not] bad or wrong " . What is the lie and what is your position about the value of corporations? > None of it " really " exists. > What does this mean? How do you distinguish between " really " existing and not " really " existing? Gary >> I take dualist thinking to be better described as dichotomous thinking. The >> problem is in seeing dichotomies where there are complex interrelationships. >> The framework above is dualist in the sense in that it implicitly opposes >> corporate interests to . . . what? The people? Since corporations employ >> people, serve customers, and create wealth that is owned by increasingly >> larger numbers of people in democratic societies, the relationship between >> " corporate interests " and the common good is complex indeed. As significant >> and visible instances of people organizing themselves, corporations are >> significant and visible objects of legislative acts and governmental >> policies. But we shouldn't think of them as having a life of their own apart >> from from people anymore than we suppose that mind and body operate >> independently of each other or that (the most dualist assumption of all) >> Reality abides in Silence while all talk is merely prattle. >> >> Gary Schouborg Performance Consulting Walnut Creek, CA garyscho >> >> Publications and professional services: http://home.att.net/~garyscho >> >> > > > Make a great > connection at Personals. http://personals. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 13, 2001 Report Share Posted October 13, 2001 Hi Gary! > (snip) Since I find the > distinction useful, and > you have said nothing to make me think otherwise, I > openly cop a plea of > guilty to this innocent dualism. Just having fun here. Enjoying the dialogue. :-) What is " one " is also " all distinctions " . Nothing is " ultimately " or " truly " opposed to anything else. What seems opposed is the " expression of One " *as* " distinctions " ... > > The dualism into which I thought you had fallen was > the non-innocent, > pejorative sort. But your clarification below > indicates that that does not > represent your thinking. " Cool " , he remarked blithely :-) > (snip) From what you say above, we seem to be > in general agreement > about the interrelatedness of corporations, but > would probably disagree on > the net desirability of their effects on the world. Puh-leeze! As if something I am going to say will affect whether or not corporations exist in the world :-) In spite of all narcissism, I'm not *that* deluded about the power of my opinions :-) The world is the world. It has nothing to do with my opinions about what is or isn't desirable ... Another way to say this ... " all of this, exactly as is, is unfolding as inevitability, including whatever " opinions " get expressed " within " this unfolding ... > [snip] > > > D: > So, indeed, it is this very silence that shows the > lie involved in the > > corporate structures designed to produce profits > for individuals (by gaining > > an advantage over other individuals and positing > the use of nonhuman > > populations as well as ecosystems for the > advantages of individuals) ... > > > > To say these systems are oriented around fictional > entities doesn't mean they > > are bad or wrong or shouldn't exist. Far from it. > > > G: You say there is a " lie involved in the corporate > structures " and then seem > to suggest that " they are [not] bad or wrong " . What > is the lie and what is > your position about the value of corporations? D: If I didn't make it clear: the lie is the existence of an autonomous, separate individual or " entity " which can make profit for itself. This is a perspective, and the perspective is maintained and forms a filter, screening out aspects of reality that don't fit the filter. > > None of it " really " exists. > > > What does this mean? How do you distinguish between > " really " existing and > not " really " existing? What really exists, isn't the product of a filter, isn't a point of view. I guess you could call what really exists, the truly " objective " . In this case, what is ultimately " objective " (being without any artificial dichotomies, perspectives, or self around which to form a center) could also be called the utterly " subjective " ... It is without an other, without an object to be sensed or related to, has no self which could gain a profit. The point of view formed around the living and dying of a creature, a being -- the center of its perceptions based on what it desires and fears, the experiences it regards as its life which it is moving through -- is not real, in the sense that I am discussing real. I am not saying that there is are no creatures, no living and dying beings, not exactly. I am saying that reality is beyond any perspective formed within those processes, and is known in and of itself, beginningless and endless. In a sense, nothing occurs within or outside of this infinity, that is real. Thus, only the real is real, and only this real *is* ... Namaste, Dan > > Gary > > >> I take dualist thinking to be better described as > dichotomous thinking. The > >> problem is in seeing dichotomies where there are > complex interrelationships. > >> The framework above is dualist in the sense in > that it implicitly opposes > >> corporate interests to . . . what? The people? > Since corporations employ > >> people, serve customers, and create wealth that > is owned by increasingly > >> larger numbers of people in democratic societies, > the relationship between > >> " corporate interests " and the common good is > complex indeed. As significant > >> and visible instances of people organizing > themselves, corporations are > >> significant and visible objects of legislative > acts and governmental > >> policies. But we shouldn't think of them as > having a life of their own apart > >> from from people anymore than we suppose that > mind and body operate > >> independently of each other or that (the most > dualist assumption of all) > >> Reality abides in Silence while all talk is > merely prattle. > >> > >> Gary Schouborg Performance Consulting Walnut > Creek, CA garyscho > >> > >> Publications and professional services: > http://home.att.net/~garyscho > >> > >> > > > > > > > Make a great > > connection at Personals. > http://personals. > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.