I think it makes sense to first define what is meant by “dualistic thinking”. Simply put, it means compartmentalising. It relates to a definite, absolute definition. This can be applied to an action, an object, a thought, a person, an emotion, in fact pretty much anything you would care to imagine. Where dualistic thought is absolute, non-dualistic thought is relative. I will leave you to decide whether that last statement should be considered an example of dualistic or non-dualistic thought.
Dualistic thinking is something we in the West are very good at. When we look at something - let’s use the example of a sunset - we know and clearly define what we are seeing. The sky is up; the ground is down; the sun is setting; night is falling and the day is ending; the stars and moon are coming out; and so on. This is, as mentioned the dualistic approach.
Now let’s try and look at the same sunset from a non-dualistic vantage point. The explanation may seem lengthy and complex on the surface. But look below the surface and it should become short and simple. Once again, this last pair of statements are left without qualification so that you can judge yourself whether they are dualistic or non-dualistic.
The sky is up or down, neither up nor down, or both up and down:
The sky is up – when compared to all that is below it. Someone with their feet firmly on the Earth will perceive the sky as being above them i.e. up.
The sky is down – when compared to all that is above it. An astronaut (taking an extreme example) looking at the Earth from outer space will perceive what we call “the sky” as down. It is well “below” their own altitude.
The sky is neither up nor down – an astronaut could also take this view. They exist for that moment as PART of “the sky”. Stars are all around them. There is no up and there is no down.
The sky is both up and down – alternatively, the same astronaut could conceive themselves as being IN the sky. Whichever way they look there is more sky. It is above them, below them, it is all around them.
The ground is down or up, neither up nor down, or both up and down
Pretty much the same considerations as for “the sky” above (or is it below ) can be made here.
The ground is down – as we normally perceive it.
The ground is up – when considering it from a point near the centre of our planet (an extreme example).
The ground is neither up nor down – considered from one viewpoint of a worm but
The ground is both and down – considered by the same worm from a different perspective.
By now I am guessing that you are getting the hang of this idea of non-dualistic thought.
The sun is setting or rising, neither setting nor rising, or both setting and rising
The sun is setting – in our part of the world.
The sun is rising – in another part of the world (the opposite side).
The sun is neither setting nor rising – at night or during the day.
The sun is both setting and rising – sunrise and sunset are just individual elements of the same cycle.
I will now let you have some fun whilst you try and find the non-dualistic reasoning behind these last groups of statements:
Night is falling and the day is ending -
The day is starting and night is ending -
Day and night are neither starting nor ending –
Both day and night are staring and ending –
The stars and moon are coming out –
The stars and moon are fading away –
The stars and moon are coming out and fading away –
The stars and moon are neither coming out nor fading away –
So by now the basic principles of non-dualistic thought should be apparent. These basic principles – alternative and relative viewpoints – can be applied pretty much universally.
But what real use is this concept of non-duality in real life?
To the surprise of many, this principle of non-dualistic existence is even prevalent in the world of high-tech --- yes, computers are being “taught” to be non-dualistic.
The original computers – and probably at least the majority of the one you are sitting in front of to read this – are dualistic. They function based on “1”s and “0”s. Simple binary code and simple logic functions are their driving forces. Switches are “off” or “on” and there is no switch which is not in one of those states. Looking at the earliest computers in detail you will find nothing more than banks and banks of switches. For a long time this was quite enough. But now, with increasing demands, this “on” / “off” system is no longer adequate. “Fuzzy Logic” has been born.
But what is “Fuzzy Logic”? The following (simple?) definition has been borrowed from this very informative website
And just to make things clearer(?), here is another interesting excerpt from the same website.
And just in case you’re now wondering where this concept of fuzzy logic is useful … well – as a simple example - just look at pretty much any modern digital camera and you’ll find this type of logic imperative to its operation.
So when you next look at person, situation, object then maybe, just maybe, you’ll see something in it that you have never seen before. I certainly hope so.
Andrew Barnett
Shaolin Wahnam Switzerland
Dualistic thinking is something we in the West are very good at. When we look at something - let’s use the example of a sunset - we know and clearly define what we are seeing. The sky is up; the ground is down; the sun is setting; night is falling and the day is ending; the stars and moon are coming out; and so on. This is, as mentioned the dualistic approach.
Now let’s try and look at the same sunset from a non-dualistic vantage point. The explanation may seem lengthy and complex on the surface. But look below the surface and it should become short and simple. Once again, this last pair of statements are left without qualification so that you can judge yourself whether they are dualistic or non-dualistic.
The sky is up or down, neither up nor down, or both up and down:
The sky is up – when compared to all that is below it. Someone with their feet firmly on the Earth will perceive the sky as being above them i.e. up.
The sky is down – when compared to all that is above it. An astronaut (taking an extreme example) looking at the Earth from outer space will perceive what we call “the sky” as down. It is well “below” their own altitude.
The sky is neither up nor down – an astronaut could also take this view. They exist for that moment as PART of “the sky”. Stars are all around them. There is no up and there is no down.
The sky is both up and down – alternatively, the same astronaut could conceive themselves as being IN the sky. Whichever way they look there is more sky. It is above them, below them, it is all around them.
The ground is down or up, neither up nor down, or both up and down
Pretty much the same considerations as for “the sky” above (or is it below ) can be made here.
The ground is down – as we normally perceive it.
The ground is up – when considering it from a point near the centre of our planet (an extreme example).
The ground is neither up nor down – considered from one viewpoint of a worm but
The ground is both and down – considered by the same worm from a different perspective.
By now I am guessing that you are getting the hang of this idea of non-dualistic thought.
The sun is setting or rising, neither setting nor rising, or both setting and rising
The sun is setting – in our part of the world.
The sun is rising – in another part of the world (the opposite side).
The sun is neither setting nor rising – at night or during the day.
The sun is both setting and rising – sunrise and sunset are just individual elements of the same cycle.
I will now let you have some fun whilst you try and find the non-dualistic reasoning behind these last groups of statements:
Night is falling and the day is ending -
The day is starting and night is ending -
Day and night are neither starting nor ending –
Both day and night are staring and ending –
The stars and moon are coming out –
The stars and moon are fading away –
The stars and moon are coming out and fading away –
The stars and moon are neither coming out nor fading away –
So by now the basic principles of non-dualistic thought should be apparent. These basic principles – alternative and relative viewpoints – can be applied pretty much universally.
But what real use is this concept of non-duality in real life?
To the surprise of many, this principle of non-dualistic existence is even prevalent in the world of high-tech --- yes, computers are being “taught” to be non-dualistic.
The original computers – and probably at least the majority of the one you are sitting in front of to read this – are dualistic. They function based on “1”s and “0”s. Simple binary code and simple logic functions are their driving forces. Switches are “off” or “on” and there is no switch which is not in one of those states. Looking at the earliest computers in detail you will find nothing more than banks and banks of switches. For a long time this was quite enough. But now, with increasing demands, this “on” / “off” system is no longer adequate. “Fuzzy Logic” has been born.
But what is “Fuzzy Logic”? The following (simple?) definition has been borrowed from this very informative website
Fuzzy logic is a superset of conventional (Boolean) logic that has been
extended to handle the concept of partial truth -- truth values between
"completely true" and "completely false". It was introduced by Dr. Lotfi
Zadeh of UC/Berkeley in the 1960's as a means to model the uncertainty
of natural language.
Zadeh says that rather than regarding fuzzy theory as a single theory, we
should regard the process of ``fuzzification'' as a methodology to
generalize ANY specific theory from a crisp (discrete) to a continuous
(fuzzy) form (see "extension principle" in [2]). Thus recently researchers
have also introduced "fuzzy calculus", "fuzzy differential equations",
and so on.
extended to handle the concept of partial truth -- truth values between
"completely true" and "completely false". It was introduced by Dr. Lotfi
Zadeh of UC/Berkeley in the 1960's as a means to model the uncertainty
of natural language.
Zadeh says that rather than regarding fuzzy theory as a single theory, we
should regard the process of ``fuzzification'' as a methodology to
generalize ANY specific theory from a crisp (discrete) to a continuous
(fuzzy) form (see "extension principle" in [2]). Thus recently researchers
have also introduced "fuzzy calculus", "fuzzy differential equations",
and so on.
Fuzzy sets and logic must be viewed as a formal mathematical theory for
the representation of uncertainty. Uncertainty is crucial for the
management of real systems: if you had to park your car PRECISELY in one
place, it would not be possible. Instead, you work within, say, 10 cm
tolerances. The presence of uncertainty is the price you pay for handling
a complex system.
Nevertheless, fuzzy logic is a mathematical formalism, and a membership
grade is a precise number. What's crucial to realize is that fuzzy logic
is a logic OF fuzziness, not a logic which is ITSELF fuzzy. But that's
OK: just as the laws of probability are not random, so the laws of
fuzziness are not vague.
the representation of uncertainty. Uncertainty is crucial for the
management of real systems: if you had to park your car PRECISELY in one
place, it would not be possible. Instead, you work within, say, 10 cm
tolerances. The presence of uncertainty is the price you pay for handling
a complex system.
Nevertheless, fuzzy logic is a mathematical formalism, and a membership
grade is a precise number. What's crucial to realize is that fuzzy logic
is a logic OF fuzziness, not a logic which is ITSELF fuzzy. But that's
OK: just as the laws of probability are not random, so the laws of
fuzziness are not vague.
So when you next look at person, situation, object then maybe, just maybe, you’ll see something in it that you have never seen before. I certainly hope so.
Andrew Barnett
Shaolin Wahnam Switzerland
Comment