Talk:Dualisms

message: I've added this page to Wikipedia:Requests for expansion. I'd like to see it further developed (and possibly split into multiple articles as suggested above) but I don't really know enough about it to do it myself. Some ideas:
*More information on the concept of dualism in Western religion and mysticism.
*A comparison of Eastern and Western perspectives on dualism.
*Additional external links
This is a topic that I find fascinating, but don't know much about, so if anyone can add to it, I'd really appreciate it. -Zorblek 07:04, 27 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: the term is used in such a variety of ways, within and across disciplines, that trying to improve this is a little like trying to take a dictionary definition and then create a compendium of how a word has actually been used.  That being said, the literature on dualism and its cousin, binary opposition, in anthropology is large.  I'd think there's a need for disambiguation, with articles on Dualism (general), Dualism (philosophy) and Dualism (anthropology/cognitive science).  The uses in anthropology and cognitive science are close enough to warrant them being in one article.  --Levalley (talk) 00:48, 2 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Expansion

message: I brought back some of the content which was present in the edit of August 12, 2005, but removed in a vandalism attack soon afterwards, and somehow never brought back since. Also I removed the link to the problem of other minds and the short paragraph about the history of mind-body dualism from the secion 'Dualism in Philosophy of Science', as those things seem to be unrelated to that particular notion of dualism. If anything, that link and paragraph should be under the 'Dualism in Philosophy of Mind' caption.
Joost 17:44, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Restored material from previous vandalism

message: This specific section looks like crap to me. It's full of a bunch of red terms, and the wording is unprofessional and seems a bit off a tangent. I'm not familiar with the material, so can anyone clear it up? Tyciol 07:49, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Mind-Matter Dualism in Eastern Philosophy?

message: This is a bit of a minor issue, but, while trying to fix all the links to the Basque disambiguation page for the Disambiguation pages with links project, I came across the term Basque bargaining (two links) here and decided to make it into one link, Basque bargaining.  Unfortunetly, this page doesn't exist, and, while attempting to do Google and Yahoo! searches for the term, to see if there was a suitable page for it to be redirected to, I discovered that this page and copies of it on other sites were the only ones that used it.
So, basically, I was just wondering whether anyone knew what this term means and could redirect it or create a page for it (or remove it), since I feel uncomfortable with "fixing" a link by turning it into one to a nonexistant page.  Thanks, Salmar 21:06, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Another solution would be to remove all the material relating to the "Emin Society", which is a rather obscure sect.1Z 20:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Basque bargaining?" 

message: Could someone please fix the movement link in "Fourth level: Balance and Movement" to the correct article instead of the movement disambiguation page? I'm unsure of the exact meaning of movement in this context so am unable to do it myself. Thanks --Kroevyn 08:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've changed it to link to motion. I hope that helps.  Amalas =^_^= 19:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  'Movement' disambiguation link fix 

message: This section could probably do with some mention of Wave–particle duality, complementarity (physics)and symmetry1Z 20:44, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Philosopphy of Science 

message: This section does not make clear what is trying to make clear.
Typically, in Western philosophy, dualism is considered to be a dualism between mind (nonphysical) and brain (physical), which ultimately involves mind interacting with pieces of tissue in the brain, and therefore, also interacting, in some sense, with the micro-particles (basic building blocks) that make up the brain tissue. Buddhist dualism, in Dharmakirti’s sense, is different in that it is a dualism between not the mind and brain which is made of particles, but rather, between states of consciousness (nonphysical) and basic building blocks (according to the Buddhist atomism of Dharmakirti, Buddhist atoms are also nonphysical: they are unstructured points of energy)
What is the difference between interacting with a brain made of basic building-blocks
(Western) and interacting with basic building blocks (Buddhist). What is the
difference between 'mind' (Western) and 'states of consciousness' (Eastern)?
1Z 20:49, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Buddhist Philosophy 

message: I remember coming to this page awhile ago and having the origins of the word 'dualism' from the Sanskrit 'duas' which (I believe I'm paraphrasing here) 'soul'. Needless to say, This is false and has been fixed, But theres still obvious signs of "New Age was here" { http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Age }. Theres some blatantly false religious terminology and belief systems. In short, I believe that this article needs a more formal editing, If not an outright rewrite with notable sources. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.218.233.253 (talk • contribs) 17:47, 6 April 2008 UTC
:I can well imagine that that silly duas notion was provoked through association of advaita with 'nondualism'. And yes, most of this article is indeed "Overzealous Appropriation" of terms. But then again, many philosophy & theology articles are riddled with "Overzealous Appropriation", to include the confusion of monism with monotheism; confusion of any -ism with any -theism; and conviction that mono* is a sign of quality.
:btw, are you volunteering to clean up? Or are you just surprised that duality in mathematics and physics hasn't been included yet? :) Aiiii. This article doesn't even mention Hyde, leave alone Descartes, Spinoza, Leibnitz, Huxley, Wolff, Malebranche, Eckles, Popper,... -- Fullstop (talk) 23:28, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Overzealous Appropriation of Buddhist Philosophy and Terms 

message: Currently Duotheism, Bitheism and Ditheism all redirect to this article, which is actually pretty uninformative on the subject. There's one very brief section on it and nothing more. However, we have another article called Dualistic cosmology which is much closer to what we want in terms of explaining these ideas. It's written largely from an ethnological perspective, but that seems fine to me, and it could be expanded in scope if we wanted. I'd like to see these terms redirect to that article instead of this one, and give the Religious Dualism section in this article a "main article" link to Dualistic cosmology, rather than just a "see also". Perhaps eventually a name-change for that article would be in order. I'm going to investigate further and see what kinds of merging might need to be done, but I'd welcome any comments or ideas. Fuzzypeg★ 23:19, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duotheism and [[Dualistic cosmology]] 

message: is crap. any noun with an -ism at the end is not a state, but a school of thought, in many cases it is hypostatic, meaning falsification, because it treats the subject (dualism) as a real thing and not a (abstract) concept.
"Live and learn" said Mr Rosewater (by Kurt Vonnegut.)
Vakeger (talk) 18:48, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Yourdef of dualism

message: According to article -=> In Vedanta philosophy
Brahman which has three fundamental attributes sat-cit (It is Chit and not Cit)-ānanda (Truth-Consciousness-Bliss). "Sat" is not "truth -(Satya)" but it means "Ever" (No beginning and No end).  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.244.20.58 (talk) 00:03, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  What "Sat-Chit-Ananda" means In Vedanta philosophy 

message: This unsourced information about Jehovah's Witnesses is incorrect and has been removed:
::Arianism and Jehovah's Witnesses hold that Jesus is a created duplicate of God, created ex nihilo and not "begotten".
Jehovah's Witnesses believe that, as a created being, the Logos (Jesus) is the only-begotten son of God, not a "duplicate". They interpret "only-begotten" to mean that he is the sole direct creation of his father. Jesus was used as the means, or agent, to create all other things. (The Watchtower, December 15, 2008, page 12.)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.26.52.171 (talk) 22:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Jehovah's Witnesses

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Dualism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110709073908/http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/hobbes/leviathan-a.html to http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl302/texts/hobbes/leviathan-a.html#CHAPTERI
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050305082331/http://etext.lib.virginia.edu:80/cgi-local/DHI/dhi.cgi?id=dv2-05 to http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/cgi-local/DHI/dhi.cgi?id=dv2-05
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:45, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Dualism (disambiguation) which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 03:15, 24 March 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress