• You are currently viewing our forum as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to additional post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), view blogs, respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free, so please join our community today! Just click here to register. You should turn your Ad Blocker off for this site or certain features may not work properly. If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us by clicking here.

Duality

ygolo

My termites win
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
5,988
It strikes me that intuition, especially Ni is better at dealing with duality than Thinking especially Ti.

Einstein had a lot of trouble accepting wave particle duality as the complete picture (as do I), but Bohr seemed to have far fewer issues with it.

Anyway, my terseness in an another was coming off as rude, and I didn't want to further derail that thread.

I was raised in a Hindu family, so duality is not a foriegn concept. But I cannot say I understand it.

So what is the nature of duality?
 

Athenian200

Protocol Droid
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Messages
8,828
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
4w5
If I'm not mistaken, it is the idea that a thing that is both itself and its opposite. It suggests that what would normally be considered a paradox is actually the way things are.

Don't quote me on that, though... I haven't read much about it, and that's just what I've gathered from the way I've heard it used.
 

Nadir

Enigma
Joined
Dec 17, 2007
Messages
544
MBTI Type
INxJ
Enneagram
4
Yes, athenian's definition is simple and concise. And her signature also showcases an example, from Hegel and his thoughts on dialectic.
 

ygolo

My termites win
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
5,988
I have a lot of trouble with dualities. They seem like "mere conventions." These are the words that reflect my true beliefs about dualities. I am sorry the words offend. But if someone could clarify my thinking regarding dualities, I would appreciate it.

IMO, paradoxes don't actually exist, but simply point out the lack of coherence in our understanding. If you want, I subscribe to the "Socratic" version of the dialectic described in Nadir's link.

I get that the creation and destruction are "two sides of the same coin." But it is not a paradox. To me it is a simple matter of poor labeling. We are usually creating something different from what is being destroyed. If what is being destroyed is "the same" as what is being created, it is again just inadequate labeling. Re-label what is being destroyed and what is being created, and the paradox disappears. The paradox was only in our minds to begin with.

I get that hot and cold are "two sides of the same coin." "Hot" cannot really exist without "cold" (or at least "not-hot"). But again, this seems like a matter of labeling. Hot is inherently defined with respect to a reference frame, so where ever you set "hot," determines that below it is not hot. But even here the arbitrariness of the labels (compared to the definiteness of reality) shines through. Most of the time, there is also cool, luke-warm, and warm (to name a few) between "hot" and "cold." If we were to set the label for "hot" to mean every temperature including absolute zero, the there is no "not hot." But that does not mean that heat energy doesn't exist outside our subjective labeling of these things.

The same goes for matter and space. What we often refer to as matter is actually composed mostly of empty space. Again, it is a matter of labeling. Just because we consider rigid bodies to be matter when designing a building, doesn't mean that the space in the atoms of the rigid body goes away. Our labeling is done for our convenience. Our labeling may lead to paradoxes, but to me that is simply an indication that we need better labeling.

Even the wave-particle duality seems to me a matter of labeling. We are trying to describe the quantum world by stretching our analogies from medium-scale physical systems (where we think of waves as water waves as our main analogy, and particles as rigid balls, like billiard balls, as our main analogy). The mathematical description doesn't show a "paradox" in the wave-particle duality (thought they exist in other parts of the formulation--again inadequate labeling). Metaphorical thinking is fought with inaccuracies. I don't think we should be surprised when "paradoxes" come up because of our use of metaphors.

Anyway, if someone could show me a non-labeling based paradox that is actually true, then I may more clearly understand what is meant by the "dual-nature of existence."
 

Kiddo

Furry Critter with Claws
Joined
Sep 25, 2007
Messages
2,790
MBTI Type
OMNi
The fact of the matter is, labels are relative. They are subjectively chosen tags which we attempt to use to form objective observations. However, the label only exists within our minds, and thus so does the objective observation. But since we can pick a relative label that we all understand, we are capable of sharing the objective observation.

If you were to go to China and talk to a man who never heard about the American measurement system and ask him for a yard of yarn or a gallon of milk, then he would have no idea what you are talking about. He doesn't understand those relative measures so he can't share the same objective observation.

It's impossible to understand dualities if you can only percieve objectively. Without an understanding of the relative nature of the universe, you are forced to create labels for every variation. Which is ironic, because objective people are forced to utilize relative means of measuring the universe. So even though the measures they use are clearly relative, "yards" and "gallons", they have to believe those measures are objective and would exist outside of human perception in order to understand the universe.
 

ygolo

My termites win
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
5,988
The fact of the matter is, labels are relative. They are subjectively chosen tags which we attempt to use to form objective observations. However, the label only exists within our minds, and thus so does the objective observation. But since we can pick a relative label that we all understand, we are capable of sharing the objective observation.

I agree with this part completely. The closest we humans can come to describing objective reality is through repeatable subjective experience. But what is this thing we are trying to get close to? THAT is not subjective, imo.

If you were to go to China and talk to a man who never heard about the American measurement system and ask him for a yard of yarn or a gallon of milk, then he would have no idea what you are talking about. He doesn't understand those relative measures so he can't share the same objective observation.

But people can (and do) make the conversion to metric and fulfill their needs. Again, no real paradox.


It's impossible to understand dualities if you can only percieve objectively. Without an understanding of the relative nature of the universe, you are forced to create labels for every variation. Which is ironic, because objective people are forced to utilize relative means of measuring the universe. So even though the measures they use are clearly relative, "yards" and "gallons", they have to believe those measures are objective and would exist outside of human perception in order to understand the universe.

To be clear (as someone labeled objective, in this context), I certainly know that "yards" and "gallons" are human creations. The measurements themselves aren't what I consider to exist outside myself, but WHAT I AM MEASURING.

Otherwise, why make the measurement at all? Why not just create some number off the top of my head and quote that as the "measurement?"

EDIT: Sorry, if the frustration is too clear in my tone.
 

Athenian200

Protocol Droid
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Messages
8,828
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
4w5
Don't worry, I know it must be frustrating... let me try again.

Dualism is the idea that things we usually see as opposite are actually two aspects of the same thing... thus, that there really is no paradox. Dualism eliminates (or tries to eliminate) paradox, in a way. It's like the idea that things move towards balance...
 

ygolo

My termites win
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
5,988
Don't worry, I know it must be frustrating... let me try again.

Dualism is the idea that things we usually see as opposite are actually two aspects of the same thing... thus, that there really is no paradox. Dualism eliminates (or tries to eliminate) paradox, in a way.

If that's all it is, than I just put myself on a wild goose chase. :doh:

Seems to me like just a temporary stop-gap. A way to appease one self to move on to something else for a while.

It is not really eliminating the paradox, so much as living with our own inadequate (paradox generating) descriptions for a while. I can accept that.
 

Kiddo

Furry Critter with Claws
Joined
Sep 25, 2007
Messages
2,790
MBTI Type
OMNi
Otherwise, why make the measurement at all? Why not just create some number off the top of my head and quote that as the "measurement?"

Ah, you are trying to establish meaning to this concept. The quest for another label! :rofl1: Well there is a group called absurdists who believe that man has been cursed with an unquenchable thirst to understand a universe that is entirely unknowable. I tend to side with them. Objectivists attempt to standardize relative measurements in order to standardize objective observations. But ultimately what are these standardized objective observations? They are absolute within a certain set up of relative parameters, but what ultimate purpose do they serve? In essence, they are the attempt of man to conform to reality. Man wants to be in line with the universe so he can understand it. And man can succeed to an extant by limiting his perception of reality, but it is absurd to apply his limited objective understanding to the entirety of the universe.

If that's all it is, than I just put myself on a wild goose chase. :doh:

Seems to me like just a temporary stop-gap. A way to appease one self to move on to something else for a while.

It is not really eliminating the paradox, so much as living with our own inadequate (paradox generating) descriptions for a while. I can accept that.

I disagree with that assessment, but if it makes you happy, then go with it.
 

Athenian200

Protocol Droid
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Messages
8,828
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
4w5
If that's all it is, than I just put myself on a wild goose chase. :doh:

Seems to me like just a temporary stop-gap. A way to appease one self to move on to something else for a while.

It is not really eliminating the paradox, so much as living with our own inadequate (paradox generating) descriptions for a while. I can accept that.

You've almost got it... but there's another element.

It also conveys the idea that in essence, describing something leaves something out. To define something is to focus on the one aspect of it that seems most significant, and ignore the rest. Meaning that you will invariably ignore the part of what you understand that doesn't already conform to the description of it you (perhaps unconsciously) form of it, because the reality of it is too complex and needs to be simplified in some way to be processed by the mind.

Let me give you another example. You can count upwards infinitely, but you never reach infinity. You can keep getting closer, but you can never reach it. The same applies if you go downwards towards infinity with negative numbers. And a fraction never disappears completely, no matter how many times you divide it, but just gets infinitely smaller. That doesn't mean you should stop trying to count. I think Kiddo is being a bit dismissive and critical here, although I understand what he's saying.
 

ygolo

My termites win
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
5,988
Ah, you are trying to establish meaning to this concept. The quest for another label! :rofl1: Well there is a group called absurdists who believe that man has been cursed with an unquenchable thirst to understand a universe that is entirely unknowable. I tend to side with them. Objectivists attempt to standardize relative measurements in order to standardize objective observations. But ultimately what are these standardized objective observations? They are absolute within a certain set up of relative parameters, but what ultimate purpose do they serve? In essence, they are the attempt of man to conform to reality. Man wants to be in line with the universe so he can understand it. And man can succeed to an extant by limiting his perception of reality, but it is absurd to apply his limited objective understanding to the entirety of the universe.

Certainly possible (nay probable) that there are parts of the universe we will never understand. But the quest continues despite knowing this. I suppose if you deny the existence of objective reality, the quest for more labels need not continue. But for some of us, that quest is our reason for being. As for the absurdity of applying objective understanding to the entirety of the universe, I'm glad to bring some laughs to some people. :D That, along with the foundations for new technologies, that even relativists make use of ;).


I disagree with that assessment, but if it makes you happy, then go with it.

It's one of those things we can't prove one way or another. But so far, the new descriptions have been found (after immense effort, sure) and have been worthwhile for humanity as a whole, imo.
 

Kiddo

Furry Critter with Claws
Joined
Sep 25, 2007
Messages
2,790
MBTI Type
OMNi
Certainly possible (nay probable) that there are parts of the universe we will never understand. But the quest continues despite knowing this. I suppose if you deny the existence of objective reality, the quest for more labels need not continue. But for some of us, that quest is our reason for being. As for the absurdity of applying objective understanding to the entirety of the universe, I'm glad to bring some laughs to some people. :D That, along with the foundations for new technologies, that even relativists make use of ;).

I said that man can succeed to an extant. He can understand a part of reality. But only the part that pertains to his perceptions. In essence, we exist in only one plane of the universe, and all the other planes of the universe will forever escape our understanding because we are limited to our relative perceptions. Considering there are infinite planes to the universe, that is a lot of stuff that we can never know or understand. But as far as understanding our particular plane of reality, I think we are doing a pretty good job. And as I said in my thread, these views only come into conflict when human beings try to apply them to constructs such as morality and ethics.

It's just another theory, but I believe that is because the perceptions of human beings don't perfectly coincide, so each individual is limited to their own spot within our plane of reality. Hence why objectivistic and relatavistic values are both necessary in order to grasp some understanding of our ultimate plane of reality.
 

disregard

mrs
Joined
Apr 23, 2007
Messages
7,826
MBTI Type
INFP
Don't worry, I know it must be frustrating... let me try again.

Dualism is the idea that things we usually see as opposite are actually two aspects of the same thing... thus, that there really is no paradox. Dualism eliminates (or tries to eliminate) paradox, in a way. It's like the idea that things move towards balance...

So.. it's like a continuum? Introversion and Extraversion? Seen to be opposites, but are really on one continuum?
 

ygolo

My termites win
Joined
Aug 6, 2007
Messages
5,988
I said that man can succeed to an extant. He can understand a part of reality. But only the part that pertains to his perceptions. In essence, we exist in only one plane of the universe, and all the other planes of the universe will forever escape our understanding because we are limited to our relative perceptions. Considering there are infinite planes to the universe, that is a lot of stuff that we can never know or understand. But as far as understanding our particular plane of reality, I think we are doing a pretty good job. And as I said in my thread, these views only come into conflict when human beings try to apply them to constructs such as morality and ethics.

It's just another theory, but I believe that is because the perceptions of human beings don't perfectly coincide, so each individual is limited to their own spot within our plane of reality. Hence why objectivistic and relatavistic values are both necessary in order to grasp some understanding of our ultimate plane of reality.

Well said. I think I'll reinstate my iNtuition as second in command... If there are no objections.
 

Athenian200

Protocol Droid
Joined
Jul 1, 2007
Messages
8,828
MBTI Type
INFJ
Enneagram
4w5
So.. it's like a continuum? Introversion and Extraversion? Seen to be opposites, but are really on one continuum?

That's one way of looking at it, I guess. Except that some continuums have more than two poles. In fact, they may have more than you can count. I'm not sure, but that sounds right to me...

Well said. I think I'll reinstate my iNtuition as second in command... If there are no objections.

Of course. Struggling with one abstraction shouldn't cause you to doubt your ability to understand abstraction in general. ;)
 

durentu

New member
Joined
Mar 18, 2008
Messages
411
MBTI Type
INTP
Enneagram
5w4
some thoughts

I'm writing this in the wee hours so I might have missed a few points.

== to the point version ==
What is duality? The prerequisites of duality requires a boundary to which one describe a binary-ness and a certain frame of reference. Like ying-yang, serial-parallel, digital-analog, male-female, etc Ask yourself what is the frame of reference, and what is the boundary of the item under consideration.

If you think of male and female, as one boundary (that which main stream society accepts), it's true. If you expand that boundary, it'll include variations like the other sexes. Like men with female organs, and the reverse. Or if you expand some more, men with dual organs, female with one of each, etc. labels of male-female start to break down and requires another perception like perhaps, percent deviation from average genetic structure.

so having beaten that horse... duality is just a term to point out that 2 different types are observed to have the least conflict and generally get along better than the other 15 permutations (or pairings). If you define the boundary of 2 types, and the frame of reference from socionics, then the definition of duality works. If you expand that boundary to holistic and encompassing idea of duality, well then we'll need much more reference books.

But for the purists, there is no natural language to describe psychological processes. Logic has their math, circuits have their networks, human communication has language. Invent a whole new language with weird symbols to describe psychology or cognitive processes and you might have something. But until that time, we're stuck (at least in here) with English.

== long winded version ==
The opportunity cost of labels or the act of labeling is to draw boundaries. These boundaries are necessary because we are trying to understand something in which is a different frame of reference. How do you describe mass to a point particle? How do you describe the color red to a blind person?

The boundaries can be strongly defined, weakly defined or relative or by means of some function, or whatever we need to help us to understand some part of it through our perceptions.

For non-omnipotent or non-omni-conscious humans like us, we make approximations on the universe to the extent that it is humanly possibly to understand. For the case of understand something within its natural element, thus not requiring labels, becomes difficult but it does exist. Sharing this knowledge requires the limitation of (besides human understanding) language or in general communication (with all the verbs, nouns, syntax, constructs necessary).

But were are experts in a few things that we generally assume. How do you explain what being human is to an alien who is considering a (genetic/surgical??) species change? What does it mean or feel like to be of a different sex? Through language and the perception of both parties, limitations exist, but it's better than nothing.

While some paradoxes are temporary, and others permanent (due to limitations of humans or whatever), the word itself presents a vantage point or a certain derivative of the truth or holistic nature. Yes, labels are labels, and be it relative, I bet it would be helpful to tell you that a hot looking person is staring at you in the bar. Would you contest the relativity of the label and state that it's not in true form? or would you take a look and go say hello? In short, labels helps the ball rolling a bit more.

Now for duality. To understand the relative label or term "duality" one must appreciate it's correct context. From MBTI or socionics, it's a theory, or an attempt to describe or emphasize (not define, although some would argue) a certain pairing of 2 types in the universe of MBTI. MBTI is an approximation of humans, not of animals, rocks or anything else (though it would be really fun to type your dog or other beasts)

From what I've read, dualities are not to infer contestation or conflict, but rather a statement of something that exists or humanly observed. A few sites use the label duality to mean slightly differently things. I just know from socionics that duality just means a pairing of 2 types that is observed to be the most comfortable, or favorable (depending on who you ask).

I being, INTP, and having met my dual ESFP, what is written is so far true. Does it mean that it is the correct description of that which exists. No, but it helps us from A to B.
 

Risen

Permabanned
Joined
Mar 19, 2008
Messages
3,185
MBTI Type
ISTP
Enneagram
9w8
Let me take a crack at it.

My understanding of duality on a conciousness level is that indeed we tend to think of things as having opposites. These opposites, however, are nothing more than an artifact of the mind. We are constantly trying to define and group things into categories, that's how our minds and ego work. Opposites, good and evil, work the same way. Though we may separate two things in our mind and consider them opposite, beyond our perception of it, they are actually just what they are, nothing more and nothing less.

Lets consider light and darkness. Light is a form of electromagnetic energy that manifests in our brains as everything we see with brightness and color. Darkness is merely the absence of light. We can always definitively say there is light wherever there is a measurable amount of that electromagnetic energy. We cannot, however, define a state of darkness so concretely. What we may often call dark is not completely devoid of light. But to say darkness is the majority over light in a closet for instance, is simply to say the absence of light is greater than the presence of light in that given space. In reality, what we are merely talking about is the same thing, light.

So what we see is from that example, there isn't a true opposite beyond our perception of an opposite in our own mind. What we are talking about with light and darkness, is merely light. There is no opposite force or entity of darkness, darkness only exists in relation to light. When there is less light WE CALL IT darkness. But all it is is less LIGHT.

Duality in our minds seeks to compartmentalize everything, and give them our own form and definition in our own minds, as oppose to seeing things just for what they are at any moment in the present. It inserts conflict in the mind where it does not exist beyond the mind. Often what we may consider opposite is nothing more than two parts of one whole picture that we took out and separated in our own minds.

Does this make sense to anyone?
 
Top