>> (a) seeing that two apparently conflicting concepts are actually
>> different sides of the same coin, and
>>
>> (b) pretending there's no conflict, when in fact there is.
>
>I think the whole point of the "seeing past the duality" meme is to enable
>one to see a system as body in flux, with competing pressures rather than
>identifying with the internal conflicts of the system.
Ok I am begining to form some understanding of seeing past the
duality.
>
[snip 3 excellent illustrations]
>I see all systems growing out of this kind of evolution of thought. Past
>the /conflict/ of the duality /nature/ of the conflict.
I wish I had got clarification on this earlier, when you use the
/ what should it be read as? Im not confident I understand the second
sentence of the above paragraph.
> I like to think
>of it this way (which is a lot easier for me to draw out than try to put
>in words):
>
>1. Singularity (unity, wholeness) which divided creates,
>
>2. Duality (black/white, male/female, good/evil) which creates
>
>3. Systems (shades, relationships, religions/myths) which are composed of
>three elements, both sides of the duality (1 and 2) and the interaction of
>the two (3rd)
I think I follow this so far. Shouldnt it say (in part 3) "both
sides of duality (2a and 2b)" though?
>
>And I see the next step as,
>
>X. Meta-System, the process of defining steps 1, 2, and 3 (in my drawings
>step X is shown as a word balloon around the previous three steps).
lets call this word balloon a, here is what happens next.
1) Singularity of a divides and creates
2)duality (a1 and a2) which creates
3) systems which are composed of 3 elements. The first two
elements are the two parts of the duality (a1 and a2) and the process of
thier interaction is the third element.
Ando so on, right?
Tim, this was a fabulous post. The thing about accepting
that the interaction is part of the whole thing I feel like you have
helped me open my eyes. The conflict is part of the system. It is ace. I
feel it describes a process that I have been going through with my stand
up act. I recently compared my first ever gig and I now think this:
When I was doing an act I think it could be best analysed in two
parts. First there were the jokes that were going down well. Then the
jokes that were going down badly. I have strived for consistency for 5
years (on and off) and failed to achieve it. Believe me I have tried to
make sense of why jokes hit/missed. I have failed.
Now that I have been thinking about my compering experience I
realise that good compering consists of 3 elements. The well received
jokes, the poorly received jokes and the situations that arise in the
narative from their interaction.
>
Now going back to the earlier question, I wrote
I reckon that in order to not have cognitive dissonance one
>> would need to create a new meme which "explains to oneself" why it was
>> ok to hold two contradictory beliefs (e.g, "anything for a quiet life").
>> This new meme would mean that one wasnt really holding two contradictory
>> beliefs anymore.
>
you asked
>Would this meme be analogous to the religious/spiritual concept of "seeing
>past the duality" then?
It is analogous to what I presently understand as seeing past
the duality, I need to mentaly chew all this over more.
Tonight has been another inspiring learning process, I am
feeling very positive (I am rubbing my hand and forefinger too.)
Thanks again everyone, especially Tim.
Tony Hindle.
"The reason that I saw so much farther than others
is that I stood on the shoulders of giants."
Newton ?