From: kurt@eskimo.celestial.com (Kurt Cockrum)
Newsgroups: pnw.general
Subject: Re: Dualistic vs Wholistic...
Date: 19 Aug 92 17:08:12 GMT
Article-I.D.: eskimo.1992Aug19.170812.15939
Distribution: pnw
Organization: >>> Eskimo North (206)-FOR-EVER <<<

In article <UNCLE.92Aug18174418@milton.milton.u.washington.edu> uncle@milton.milton.u.washington.edu (Milton Friedmen) writes:
[...]
>>[kurt here]
>>This is the sort of stuff that ought to be part of the background
>>knowledge of anybody who claims to be educated, i. e., if you have
>>a baccalaureate degree and you don't know this, you got gypped and
>>ought to sue your alma mater for educational damages.
>
>I never claimed I was educated :-)

Maybe we should define "educated" as anybody with school exposure beyond
the AA or AS level, i. e. somebody who stayed in school past the point
where they could have gotten their Associates degree (the academic rung
below baccalaureate).  Maybe I should make that school exposure past high
school?

>                                    But seriously, there's lots of different
>terminology out there and not a lot of standardization.  I might be completely
>familiar with the concepts you are trying to communicate but unable to
>understand the words you use.  For example:
>
>>I'm trying to say that a dualistic world-view gives an overly simplified,
>>highly distorted picture of reality.  The view that there are only 2 sexes,
>>for example, gives rise to highly stereotyped sex roles that people are
>>expected to conform to, ignoring the fact that sex and sexuality are *not*
>>2-valued, male-vs-female things but really infinite-valued.  The problem
>>with dualities is that they ignore all the stuff inbetween, or shoehorn
>>the stuff into one or the other pigeonhole, no matter how absurd or painful
>>the fit.
>
>This is a description of a phenomenon which (I assume) is obvious to any
>thinking person who has meaningful philosophical discussions (as opposed to
>people who argue semantics or just yell at each other).  It isn't just about
>sex and sexual stereotypes and it's not*fuzzy* at all.  It's only becomes
>fuzzy when you hide it behind words no one knows.  It should be stated boldly.
>There are no absolutes!  There is no point!

I can't disagree with you here, except to say that we are not face-to-face
but are electronically connected by media that doesn't have enough bandwidth
for the subtle "out-of-band" cues that get exchanged, along with the verbiage
itself, in a face-to-face conversation.  In a face-to-face, yes, I would
state things boldly when I'm sure of being understood.  Here, on the net,
it's hard to be sure that one is being understood when the window to the
whole universe of the net is an 80-column, 24-line monochrome alpha screen
with VT100 attributes.  However, I will strive more for terseness :) ...

>For reference I should say that I do have two BS degrees (or is that "2
>degrees of BS?")  In fact I remember taking a philosophy class in which we
>discussed "dualism".  But this dualism was set against materialism,
>phenomenolism and other isms.  It referred to a belief that there are two
>realms: the physical and the metaphysical.  This seems only dimly related to
>your use of the word.  For example, it said nothing about sexual sterotypes.
>Perhaps your word "dualism" comes from political science or psychology?  Do
>tell.

My usage, I think, comes from Zen and Daoist schools of thought, filtered
thru exposure to, training in, or practice of hippiedom, computers, martial
arts, and an avocational interest in the intersection of philosophy and
foundations of mathematics, and additional interests in personal freedom
and enjoyment of life, and personal reflections on "the power of 2" and
its apparent pervasiveness, akin to that of PI and E :) .  It's one of a
small, conspiratorial cabal of Universal Constants that Control the Universe
:) :) ...
-- 
kurt@grogatch.celestial.com (Kurt Cockrum)
 "People who sign their own .sig are just net.personality wanna-bees." --
 K. Cockrum
Newsgroups: pnw.general