I am interested in what he has to say of his brand of dualism in comparison to my monistic view.
Whats your monistic view?
I hold reality as being dualistic, and actuality as monistic. Objectiveness can be brought down in its purest form as being monistic. Anything perceived or from subjectivity is in its purest, dualistic. Simple as that.
For example, we might take Russel's view that the universe in actuality is just light, and different conditions enable different forms, and form requires perception to be distinguishable. (At least I think that was Russel's view, haven't read much though).
Actuality can only be one thing and whether or not it is light is questionable because waves might just be a viewpoint of our mind and not the actual form of it, and broken down.
I wouldn't even say dimension is actual. Dimension is a characteristic of reality because it is relational perception's ability, and we only find potential in the dimensions we perceive. Others when thought up or tried to be perceived spatially, end up being irrational.
In order for us to perceive there must be dualism, relation is the essence of consciousness's purest form, and thus reality's. And we do not perceive actuality, actuality is a basis for the reality we perceive, and reality is always going to be relational for it is a link to actuality by means of it as a viewpoint with potential, otherwise actuality in itself is without potential.
I think dimension could be considered a product or complexity, not corresponding dimension/size for its potential and therefore perceivability.
For example. In a 4D spatial perception it requires a sort f 360 degree perception so it would seem prudent to say that any conscious form would require to take up the entire space of the universe in order for that to be possible. But this is irrational and not the case. I think it is simply the complexity of what makes up our mind that harvests our perceptive abilities, including dimension. If we viewed form to be spatially inversed upon itself then we would acquire a good 4D perception, but such that perception has no potential.
I don't know how life could acquire such translation because we evolve through environment effect on us based on sensation, right? (Boagie, you'd know)
And since we are in an environment perceived as 3D therefore sensed as 3D, but not attributed to actually being 3D, it is probably hard to make that switch, not that it would matter. Why hold 4D higher in regard to 3D?
Maybe this is a reason for inertia? We change based on judgement rather than sensation? If sensation is pure and 100% true, then the environment can change and one would adapt to it rather quickly; but through judgement... then the judgement becomes information that gives our perception and biological change. And the judgement sticks even though not true. So it would be an imperfection to progress, or at least change, constituting inertia.:deep-thought:
... if we applied it in relation to objects where if a force applied, it will be stagnant. If an object is not moving then it will remain that way until a force is applied.
This tells that force is the only effect on matter, being that force is transfer of energy, we can say that conditions are changing for matter's allocation, in actuality monism works through its ability to affect itself.
Maybe because it is not actually doing so. I mean, changing conditions seems pretty relational to me. And that relational, realitistic sense constitutes a monistic essence. :detective:
If we said that yes by "conditions" there is more than 1 thing, we could say that the monistic essence of these conditions (which Russel stated) is a means for balance:yinyang: (and balance is of absolute means, one [ignore the 'twoness' :lol:of the emoticon). (of some sort I guess, dunno what it is).:Not-Impressed:
So, connections/potential that is made of the environment is not occuring from anything intrinsic like actuality unless...
wait ok... balance might constitute as providing potential, being that it connects everything.
Unless I assumed that balance was absolute means then it is the same as absolute randomness and therefore no potential in and of itself unless construed with a relation.. perfect:a-ok:
:a-thought:So everthing is
nothing. (At least I have to assume that for this to work)