Let me know what you think of this argument.

Philosophy, and all modern thinking, is divided into subject and object: Dualism.

The subject thinks and acts and this thinking and acting is an object. For example, "The man washes the car." The man = subject; washes the car = object. Or, "The man thinks he's good." The man = subject; thinks he's good = object.

Eradicating dualism is a grammatical issue. Erase the subject from language and only speak of objects, or more precisely, predicates, then the boundary line between man and the world disappears. The subject, if we could ever speak of one, is always in the predicate. Everything, then, becomes "action" or "doing". Language, then, would have to be reformed so nouns and adjectives are eradicated, and verbs and adverbs become dominant.

'You', are the observer.       [i.e. right now, you are 'looking outward', observing the 'world']

i.e. You are, [your own] consciousness ?

So, isn't everything 'outside' of the observer, subjective ?    [i.e. merely being observed.]



IMO, it is all an elaborate illusion.       [i.e. what we observe.]






Does that make any sense ?        ;D

It makes sense.

Doesn't Christianity teach to "live according to the spirit and not the flesh" (somewhere in Romans)? Isn't this Christianity's attempt to eradicate dualism?

Yadda wrote on Apr 11^th, 2013 at 12:56pm:

IMO, it is all an elaborate illusion.       [i.e. what we observe.]

Even though i am sure that it is all, just an elaborate illusion, i choose to flow with it, and i choose to interact with it.      ['it', being the reality, the illusion, which i do perceive]

Because i believe that that, is my purpose in being here.

It is intended [by our 'source'/creator] that we should 'interact' with this illusion.     [....i believe]

[And our choices are being recorded.]     [....i believe       ;)      ]

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Apr 11^th, 2013 at 1:04pm:

It makes sense. Doesn't Christianity teach to "live according to the spirit and not the flesh" (somewhere in Romans)? Isn't this Christianity's attempt to eradicate dualism?

Romans 8:1
There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
2  For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death.
3  For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh:
4  That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit.
5  For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit.
6  For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
7  Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be.
8  So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God.
9  But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his.



Jesus said.....

John 6:63
It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

In fact, we could probably reduce all religions and meditation practices to this one fundamental problem. Don't they all attempt to collapse the distinction between the subject and object? Christianity - salvation, Buddhism - nirvana etc? Isn't Christianity the attempt to become united with god, thus collapsing the distinction between man's ego and god's will?

Romanticism was the last philosophy that attempted to eradicate the separation. What is remarkable about Romanticism is that it attempted to do it secularly and with any meditation or ascetic practices.

Yadda wrote on Apr 11^th, 2013 at 1:15pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Apr 11th, 2013 at 1:04pm: It makes sense. Doesn't Christianity teach to "live according to the spirit and not the flesh" (somewhere in Romans)? Isn't this Christianity's attempt to eradicate dualism? Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. 2  For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. 3  For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: 4  That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. 5  For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. 6  For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. 7  Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. 8  So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. 9  But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. Jesus said..... John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.

I thought you'd be on the ball with that one. Well done.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Apr 11^th, 2013 at 1:04pm:

It makes sense. Doesn't Christianity teach to "live according to the spirit and not the flesh" (somewhere in Romans)? Isn't this Christianity's attempt to eradicate dualism?

That Billy Joel song;

"We're only human. We're supposed to make mistakes."


It is true, imo.

I believe that if we recognise our error [in our heart], then God will for give us, our mistakes.

But most of mankind refuses to come to, 'that place'.
i.e.
"I've made a lot of mistakes. Sorry."







1 John 1:8
If we say that we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.
9  If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.

Yadda wrote on Apr 11^th, 2013 at 12:56pm:

'You', are the observer.       [i.e. right now, you are 'looking outward', observing the 'world'] i.e. You are, [your own] consciousness ? So, isn't everything 'outside' of the observer, subjective ?    [i.e. merely being observed.] IMO, it is all an elaborate illusion.       [i.e. what we observe.] Does that make any sense ?        ;D

How might the Butterfly Dream resonate in this topic????

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Apr 11^th, 2013 at 1:18pm:

Yadda wrote on Apr 11th, 2013 at 1:15pm: Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Apr 11th, 2013 at 1:04pm: It makes sense. Doesn't Christianity teach to "live according to the spirit and not the flesh" (somewhere in Romans)? Isn't this Christianity's attempt to eradicate dualism? Romans 8:1 There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. 2  For the law of the Spirit of life in Christ Jesus hath made me free from the law of sin and death. 3  For what the law could not do, in that it was weak through the flesh, God sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh, and for sin, condemned sin in the flesh: 4  That the righteousness of the law might be fulfilled in us, who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit. 5  For they that are after the flesh do mind the things of the flesh; but they that are after the Spirit the things of the Spirit. 6  For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace. 7  Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be. 8  So then they that are in the flesh cannot please God. 9  But ye are not in the flesh, but in the Spirit, if so be that the Spirit of God dwell in you. Now if any man have not the Spirit of Christ, he is none of his. Jesus said..... John 6:63 It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life. I thought you'd be on the ball with that one. Well done.

What are you going to do with the word you just used. I.

Maybe you could give an example.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Apr 11^th, 2013 at 11:47am:

Let me know what you think of this argument. Philosophy, and all modern thinking, is divided into subject and object: Dualism. The subject thinks and acts and this thinking and acting is an object. For example, "The man washes the car." The man = subject; washes the car = object. Or, "The man thinks he's good." The man = subject; thinks he's good = object. Eradicating dualism is a grammatical issue. Erase the subject from language and only speak of objects, or more precisely, predicates, then the boundary line between man and the world disappears. The subject, if we could ever speak of one, is always in the predicate. Everything, then, becomes "action" or "doing". Language, then, would have to be reformed so nouns and adjectives are eradicated, and verbs and adverbs become dominant.

Why would you want to eradicate dualism?

SOB

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Apr 11^th, 2013 at 1:18pm:

In fact, we could probably reduce all religions and meditation practices to this one fundamental problem. Don't they all attempt to collapse the distinction between the subject and object? Christianity - salvation, Buddhism - nirvana etc? Isn't Christianity the attempt to become united with god, thus collapsing the distinction between man's ego and god's will? Romanticism was the last philosophy that attempted to eradicate the separation. What is remarkable about Romanticism is that it attempted to do it secularly and with any meditation or ascetic practices.

Are you referring to experiencing the 'oceanic feeling'?

Alinta wrote on Apr 11^th, 2013 at 1:24pm:

How might the Butterfly Dream resonate in this topic????

It could work. Could you expand on it, maybe?

progressiveslol wrote on Apr 11^th, 2013 at 11:07pm:

What are you going to do with the word you just used. I. Maybe you could give an example.

To be honest, I don't have any examples. It was just an idea or a thought experiment. To remove the subject, nouns, and adjectives from grammar would be a job that would take a few centuries, which includes a complete re-write of grammatical rules.

Given that we think in words, our thinking would change as the meaning of the words change.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 6:18am:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Apr 11th, 2013 at 1:18pm: In fact, we could probably reduce all religions and meditation practices to this one fundamental problem. Don't they all attempt to collapse the distinction between the subject and object? Christianity - salvation, Buddhism - nirvana etc? Isn't Christianity the attempt to become united with god, thus collapsing the distinction between man's ego and god's will? Romanticism was the last philosophy that attempted to eradicate the separation. What is remarkable about Romanticism is that it attempted to do it secularly and with any meditation or ascetic practices. Are you referring to experiencing the 'oceanic feeling'?

Yes, that is one aspect of it. There is also the attempt by philosophers (which is related to the oceanic feeling) of embodying pure or complete knowledge of the world, thus eradicating the distinction between the doubting mind and knowledge itself. This is what Plato was trying to achieve with the theory of forms. If we could intuitively grasp the forms we would be.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Apr 11^th, 2013 at 1:18pm:

Isn't Christianity the attempt to become united with god, thus collapsing the distinction between man's ego and god's will?

Morning Mist,

I honestly believe that; "collapsing the distinction between man's ego and god's will", is way, way, beyond our human grasp/capability, 'intellectually'.
[...even though many of us would consider ourselves 'capable', if we 'applied' ourselves to that 'problem'.]




I believe that many Christians may present Christianity in that way [...as Christianity, being a means to 'come to God'. i.e. as a means for man [i.e. on his own terms], to be able to approach a holy God.].

But i do not believe that 'Christianity' is 'attempting' to resolve the 'high' existential questions that man has, about himself [...not on merely an intellectual level anyway!].
[i believe that Christianity, is [unfortunately] a very worldly church]

Because i don't believe that, in this form [being spirit beings locked within these clay 'prisons'], we have a capacity to fully understand our place [here] or our purpose [here].

I believe that it was always intended [by our 'source'/creator], that the focus of [i.e. our focus, in] our lives, would always be 'in the world'.    [...so that we could make many errors, and then, come [ourselves] to meditate upon those errors.    i.e. i believe that this life, is a 'fixed game', ref that Billy Joel lyric again.  "We're only human. We're supposed to make mistakes."]

I don't believe that [in this dense physical form] we have a capacity to even nearly understand what 'God' is, or the purpose of 'God's will'.

i.e.
How can what is flesh, comprehend what is spirit ?                        [i do not believe that it [we] can, ever]

There is a spirit realm [i believe,  ;)   ].

But [i believe that, intentionally] we normally have no perception of it.

So how can [what is] flesh be 'reconciled'? with what is spirit, when we [i.e. the consciousness that we are] does not even understand > WHAT < 'spirit' is ?

I don't understand what 'spirit' is.





Saying this [above], i do believe that our 'source'/creator does desire [and does hope], that mankind [individually] will meditate upon his [i.e. our] existence and its possible purpose.




+++



Psalms 14:2
The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God.


Psalms 69:32
The humble shall see this, and be glad: and your heart shall live that seek God.



Speaking about the days which man's spends here, in this life....

Ecclesiastes 3:10
I have seen the travail, which God hath given to the sons of men to be exercised in it.
11  He hath made every thing beautiful in his time: also he hath set the world in their heart, so that no man can find out the work that God maketh from the beginning to the end.
12  I know that there is no good in them, but for a man to rejoice, and to do good in his life.
13  And also that every man should eat and drink, and enjoy the good of all his labour, it is the gift of God.





p.s.
I do not 'believe in' Christian church structures, nor, do i 'believe in' what 'Christianity' is, today.

I believe in God, i trust in God [blindly?].

I trust in God, because i firmly believe that God [my 'source'/creator] has my best interests at heart.

For myself, that 'circumstance', is not difficult to believe.

I think the central problem preventing the eradication of dualism is auxiliary verbs and/or copulas. These are the words that link the subject to the predicate. If you take away auxiliary verbs and copulas then the distinction between subject and predicate collapses: The subject and predicate become one. 

Auxiliary verbs: is, are, be, has, have, can, should, will, might.

Hmmm...

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Apr 11^th, 2013 at 11:47am:

Let me know what you think of this argument. Philosophy, and all modern thinking, is divided into subject and object: Dualism.

Simplistic.

The part you quoted is a statement and not necessarily the argumentative part of my post.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Apr 11^th, 2013 at 11:47am:

Let me know what you think of this argument. Philosophy, and all modern thinking, is divided into subject and object: Dualism. The subject thinks and acts and this thinking and acting is an object. For example, "The man washes the car." The man = subject; washes the car = object. Or, "The man thinks he's good." The man = subject; thinks he's good = object. Eradicating dualism is a grammatical issue. Erase the subject from language and only speak of objects, or more precisely, predicates, then the boundary line between man and the world disappears. The subject, if we could ever speak of one, is always in the predicate. Everything, then, becomes "action" or "doing". Language, then, would have to be reformed so nouns and adjectives are eradicated, and verbs and adverbs become dominant.

I'm not actually sure what is wrong with the object that it should be removed from language.

Also... In the sentence; The man washes the car. I can see an actor acting apon an object, which means there are three things going on (subject, action, object) not two (subject and object).

I wonder what language would look like and the extent to which ontology is improved if the object is removed.

Sir Spot of Borg wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 5:11am:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Apr 11th, 2013 at 11:47am: Let me know what you think of this argument. Philosophy, and all modern thinking, is divided into subject and object: Dualism. The subject thinks and acts and this thinking and acting is an object. For example, "The man washes the car." The man = subject; washes the car = object. Or, "The man thinks he's good." The man = subject; thinks he's good = object. Eradicating dualism is a grammatical issue. Erase the subject from language and only speak of objects, or more precisely, predicates, then the boundary line between man and the world disappears. The subject, if we could ever speak of one, is always in the predicate. Everything, then, becomes "action" or "doing". Language, then, would have to be reformed so nouns and adjectives are eradicated, and verbs and adverbs become dominant. Why would you want to eradicate dualism? SOB

Sappho wrote on Apr 25^th, 2013 at 10:23pm:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Apr 11th, 2013 at 11:47am: Let me know what you think of this argument. Philosophy, and all modern thinking, is divided into subject and object: Dualism. The subject thinks and acts and this thinking and acting is an object. For example, "The man washes the car." The man = subject; washes the car = object. Or, "The man thinks he's good." The man = subject; thinks he's good = object. Eradicating dualism is a grammatical issue. Erase the subject from language and only speak of objects, or more precisely, predicates, then the boundary line between man and the world disappears. The subject, if we could ever speak of one, is always in the predicate. Everything, then, becomes "action" or "doing". Language, then, would have to be reformed so nouns and adjectives are eradicated, and verbs and adverbs become dominant. I'm not actually sure what is wrong with the object that it should be removed from language. Also... In the sentence; The man washes the car. I can see an actor acting apon an object, which means there are three things going on (subject, action, object) not two (subject and object). I wonder what language would look like and the extent to which ontology is improved if the object is removed.

I am basically just experimenting with language. Given that we think in words, if we change the way we conceive of them, then our own thinking would be altered in the process. Most thinking separates man from the world. Scientific thinking does this as it sees man as an atom surrounded by external, independent objects. By collapsing the distinction between the subject and object, man is then never separated from what he does: He is the world and the world is him; all is natural; all is an unfolding of nature. It's kind of like pantheism, but heavily influenced by the Romantics.

Anyway, to answer your sentence query. Grammaticians usually place the action and object together - they call it a predicate.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Apr 26^th, 2013 at 9:50am:

Anyway, to answer your sentence query. Grammaticians usually place the action and object together - they call it a predicate.

This is correct - and so original outline is incorrect, in particular, when you say 'the man thinks he is good'. Here the subject and the object are both 'man'. 'thinks he is good' is the predicate, 'he' is a pronoun for man, ie man and he refer to the same thing. So subject = object.
No dualism.



Anyway, you can't 'eradicate' (a tendentious and arrogant choice of word in this context) dualism  not only because it is built into language, but because it is a lived experience (and that is why it is built into language).

Asking to 'eradicate' dualism is like asking to eradicate experience.

Soren wrote on Apr 26^th, 2013 at 11:06am:

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Apr 26th, 2013 at 9:50am: Anyway, to answer your sentence query. Grammaticians usually place the action and object together - they call it a predicate. This is correct - and so original outline is incorrect, in particular, when you say 'the man thinks he is good'. Here the subject and the object are both 'man'. 'thinks he is good' is the predicate, 'he' is a pronoun for man, ie man and he refer to the same thing. So subject = object. No dualism. Anyway, you can't 'eradicate' (a tendentious and arrogant choice of word in this context) dualism  not only because it is built into language, but because it is a lived experience (and that is why it is built into language). Asking to 'eradicate' dualism is like asking to eradicate experience.

And what of the object "good"?
Also, the repetition of the pronoun twice in the sentence - man and he - represents a separation between the subject and the object.

The man (subject) thinks he (now refers to himself in the third person, hence an object) is good (an external property; also an object).

If there were no distinction between subject and object, then different terms wouldn't be used to describe these parts of the sentence.

You seem confused.

"The man thinks he is good" - the man is not referring to himself. You are referring to the man.  If the man was to refer to himself, he would say 'I think I am good'. He describes a quality, not an object.

Dualism is introduced by you, the speaker describe what the man thinks about himself. The objectification occurs in you because you are talking about another man, not yourself. There are two of you. This is a natural experience of dualism and cannot be eradicated.You are looking at the man and talking about him - ie you are objectifying him.

When he is thinking about himself and describes himself he is not engaging in dualism because he is talking about himself - one and the same man.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Apr 26^th, 2013 at 12:17pm:

The man (subject) thinks he (now refers to himself in the third person, hence an object) is good (an external property; also an object).

You don't seem to realise that in your example the man is not speaking. You are speaking. You are reporting what the man thinks. You objectify him because he is not you but other than you.
As I said, if he spoke, he would say 'I think I am good'.
There are no two people in that sentence just because the word 'I' occurs twice.

And good is not an object. Only transitive verbs can have an object which is a noun or a noun phrase. Good is a descriptive (adjective).

Well.... thank you for clearing that up.  :-/

For myself, I think Soren has the right of it, a subjectively experiencing being can't be objective. Perhaps it could be further expanded to argue that a self aware being cannot be objective when engaging introspection because we cannot go beyond qualia and axioms.

Food for thought.

If an object is used in the sentence, then a division seems clear. If it is a compliment, then the division doesn't seem so clear.

The second "I" in the sentence "I think I am good" needs to be removed so the speaking doesn't refer to himself in the third person. "I am good" goes some of the way to removing a dualism.

Sappho wrote on Apr 27^th, 2013 at 10:01am:

Well.... thank you for clearing that up.  :-/ For myself, I think Soren has the right of it, a subjectively experiencing being can't be objective. Perhaps it could be further expanded to argue that a self aware being cannot be objective when engaging introspection because we cannot go beyond qualia and axioms.

I think from a purely existential point of view the dualism issue is resolved as long as every experience is new - kind of like a continually created life that never repeats: where every moment is as fresh as the first.

Postmodern Trendoid III wrote on Apr 27^th, 2013 at 10:17am:

Sappho wrote on Apr 27th, 2013 at 10:01am: Well.... thank you for clearing that up.  :-/ For myself, I think Soren has the right of it, a subjectively experiencing being can't be objective. Perhaps it could be further expanded to argue that a self aware being cannot be objective when engaging introspection because we cannot go beyond qualia and axioms. I think from a purely existential point of view the dualism issue is resolved as long as every experience is new - kind of like a continually created life that never repeats: where every moment is as fresh as the first.

So the infant becomes subjectified through repetition? That makes sense... however, the inclination for repetitive behaviour needs also to be removed if objectivity is to dominate.

Can't think of a single thing that does not repeat its behaviour, can you? Not even exotic matter can fit the requirements of objectivity... since its very nature is to repeat certain behaviours which humanity study and predict. 

Misty, I don't quite understand what you are driving at with this eradicate dualism.
There is no dualism from the point of view of  god-as-nature and everything. Capital B Being includes all and so it is a singularity. But everything else is self plus all other selves.

The king kissed the queen.
The queen was kissed by the king.
The queen thought she was kissed by the king.
The king though he kissed the queen.
The courtiers standing around thought the king kissed the queen.
Etc.

There is a king and there is a queen. Dualism.


You are not going to eradicate multiple selves, no matter how you tist the language  - because there are multiple selves.