Philosophy Now Forum

I’m becoming more convinced that the growing influence in society of the dualistic mind is destroying the objective value of both philosophy as the love of wisdom and the essence of religion which connects human being with its source. This is not a popular topic on a site dominated by secularism and its reliance on the dualistic mind but it is worth trying for the benefit of some people who rarely post but are aware of the problem. If some are open to the debilitating effects of the dualistic mind perhaps we can build on it. If not; as is said, no harm no foul. Before bringing Plato into it, I’ll begin with a short article on the nature of the dualistic mind. Where the dualistic mind pulls reality down into our dualistic perception and justifies it, the alternative is awakening to the triune universe and freedom from the psychological confines of Plato’s cave supported by the dualistic mind. Will society as a whole ever be able to “put new wine into new bottles?” Who knows.

https://cac.org/the-dualistic-mind-2017-01-29/

…………………Dualistic thinking, or the “egoic operating system,” as my friend and colleague Cynthia Bourgeault calls it, is our way of reading reality from the position of our private and small self. “What’s in it for me?” “How will I look if I do this?” This is the ego’s preferred way of seeing reality. It is the ordinary “hardware” of almost all Western people, even those who think of themselves as Christians. The church has neglected its central work of teaching prayer and contemplation, allowing the language of institutional religion itself to remain dualistic and largely argumentative. We ended up confusing information with enlightenment, mind with soul, and thinking with experiencing—yet these are very different paths.

The dualistic mind is essentially binary, either/or thinking. It knows by comparison, opposition, and differentiation. It uses descriptive words like good/evil, pretty/ugly, smart/stupid, not realizing there may be a hundred degrees between the two ends of each spectrum. Dualistic thinking works well for the sake of simplification and conversation, but not for the sake of truth or the immense subtlety of actual personal experience. Most of us settle for quick and easy answers instead of any deep perception, which we leave to poets, philosophers, and prophets. Yet depth and breadth of perception should be the primary arena for all authentic religion. How else could we possibly search for God?

We do need the dualistic mind to function in practical life, however, and to do our work as a teacher, a nurse, a scientist, or an engineer. It’s helpful and fully necessary as far as it goes, but it just doesn’t go far enough. The dualistic mind cannot process things like infinity, mystery, God, grace, suffering, sexuality, death, or love; this is exactly why most people stumble over these very issues. The dualistic mind pulls everything down into some kind of tit-for-tat system of false choices and too-simple contraries, which is largely what “fast food religion” teaches, usually without even knowing it. Without the contemplative and converted mind—honest and humble perception—much religion is frankly dangerous.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sat Aug 25, 2018 6:14 pm I’m becoming more convinced that the growing influence in society of the dualistic mind is destroying the objective value of both philosophy as the love of wisdom and the essence of religion which connects human being with its source. This is not a popular topic on a site dominated by secularism and its reliance on the dualistic mind but it is worth trying for the benefit of some people who rarely post but are aware of the problem. If some are open to the debilitating effects of the dualistic mind perhaps we can build on it. If not; as is said, no harm no foul. Before bringing Plato into it, I’ll begin with a short article on the nature of the dualistic mind. Where the dualistic mind pulls reality down into our dualistic perception and justifies it, the alternative is awakening to the triune universe and freedom from the psychological confines of Plato’s cave supported by the dualistic mind. Will society as a whole ever be able to “put new wind into new bottles?” Who knows.

https://cac.org/the-dualistic-mind-2017-01-29/

…………………Dualistic thinking, or the “egoic operating system,” as my friend and colleague Cynthia Bourgeault calls it, is our way of reading reality from the position of our private and small self. “What’s in it for me?” “How will I look if I do this?” This is the ego’s preferred way of seeing reality. It is the ordinary “hardware” of almost all Western people, even those who think of themselves as Christians. The church has neglected its central work of teaching prayer and contemplation, allowing the language of institutional religion itself to remain dualistic and largely argumentative. We ended up confusing information with enlightenment, mind with soul, and thinking with experiencing—yet these are very different paths.

The dualistic mind is essentially binary, either/or thinking. It knows by comparison, opposition, and differentiation. It uses descriptive words like good/evil, pretty/ugly, smart/stupid, not realizing there may be a hundred degrees between the two ends of each spectrum. Dualistic thinking works well for the sake of simplification and conversation, but not for the sake of truth or the immense subtlety of actual personal experience. Most of us settle for quick and easy answers instead of any deep perception, which we leave to poets, philosophers, and prophets. Yet depth and breadth of perception should be the primary arena for all authentic religion. How else could we possibly search for God?

We do need the dualistic mind to function in practical life, however, and to do our work as a teacher, a nurse, a scientist, or an engineer. It’s helpful and fully necessary as far as it goes, but it just doesn’t go far enough. The dualistic mind cannot process things like infinity, mystery, God, grace, suffering, sexuality, death, or love; this is exactly why most people stumble over these very issues. The dualistic mind pulls everything down into some kind of tit-for-tat system of false choices and too-simple contraries, which is largely what “fast food religion” teaches, usually without even knowing it. Without the contemplative and converted mind—honest and humble perception—much religion is frankly dangerous.

That is because western individualism is rooted in the projection of the self away from its own origins in the respect one is told to change the world rather than changing oneself and in these respects one is never left with a real understanding of the self they are trying to form the world into to.

Eodnhoj7

That is because western individualism is rooted in the projection of the self away from its own origins in the respect one is told to change the world rather than changing oneself and in these respects one is never left with a real understanding of the self they are trying to form the world into to.

Would you agree then that there is a tendency to equate information with enlightenment as implied in the article? If true, we may be acquiring more facts but becoming less enlightened.

“We ended up confusing information with enlightenment, mind with soul, and thinking with experiencing—yet these are very different paths.”

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 25, 2018 7:34 pm That is because western individualism is rooted in the projection of the self away from its own origins in the respect one is told to change the world rather than changing oneself and in these respects one is never left with a real understanding of the self they are trying to form the world into to.

Is this the usual "if the world troubles you, change yourself"?

Now I have to get this right... When Galileo Galilei realized that his scientific observations contradicted that of the Church-governed realm of society, and the fact that he would eventually face death by burning on the stake had he not pulled back his teachings, he should simply change himself in accordance with the erroneous teachings and conform to stupidity, rather than trying to change the world for the better?

And the French, British and Americans should simply "look into themselves" and face their own troubles when the rest of the world was about to be nazified on one side, and stalinized on the other, rather than changing the world by going to war and fighting the evils of nazism and stalinism?

And the poor victims living under Islamic State should simply blame themselves for the floggings and executions of their loved ones, instead of trying to rebel against the ISIS - again, they should change oneself instead of changing the world?

No, I don't buy into that...

Individualism is the most important aspect of human life and the reasons you can even think of having such ideas as dualistic mind etc.
Individual liberty is THE reason we can even discuss these things and see the degrees between the two ends of a spectrum, as the OP puts it.

Could you propose something which is not dual and functional?

bahman wrote: ↑Sat Aug 25, 2018 9:50 pm Could you propose something which is not dual and functional?

Yes,the essence of religion and philosophy as the love of wisdom requires opening to the intellectual realm described by Plato in the divided line analogy

http://www.john-uebersax.com/plato/plato1.htm

Using a line for illustration, Plato divides human knowledge into four grades or levels, differing in their degree of clarity and truth. First, imagine a line divided into two sections of unequal length (Figure 1, hash mark C). The upper level corresponds to Knowledge, and is the realm of Intellect. The lower level corresponds to Opinion, and concerns the world of sensory experience. Plato says only that the sections are of "unequal" length, but the conventional view is that the Knowledge section is the longer one.

Then bisect each of these sections (hash marks B and D). This produces four line segments, corresponding to four cognitive states and/or modes of thinking. From highest to lowest, these are:

noesis (immediate intuition, apprehension, or mental 'seeing' of principles)
dianoia (discursive thought)
pistis (belief or confidence)
eikasia (delusion or sheer conjecture)

Noesis and dianoia are attributes of the intellectual realm of knowledge while pistis an eikasia are interpretations of the visible realm of opinion. Pistis an eikasia are representative of dulistic thought while the experience of noesis for example is the result of a quality of direct consciousness that has no denying side but is pure affirmation.

philosopher wrote: ↑Sat Aug 25, 2018 9:04 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sat Aug 25, 2018 7:34 pm That is because western individualism is rooted in the projection of the self away from its own origins in the respect one is told to change the world rather than changing oneself and in these respects one is never left with a real understanding of the self they are trying to form the world into to.

Is this the usual "if the world troubles you, change yourself"?

Now I have to get this right... When Galileo Galilei realized that his scientific observations contradicted that of the Church-governed realm of society, and the fact that he would eventually face death by burning on the stake had he not pulled back his teachings, he should simply change himself in accordance with the erroneous teachings and conform to stupidity, rather than trying to change the world for the better?

And the French, British and Americans should simply "look into themselves" and face their own troubles when the rest of the world was about to be nazified on one side, and stalinized on the other, rather than changing the world by going to war and fighting the evils of nazism and stalinism?

And the poor victims living under Islamic State should simply blame themselves for the floggings and executions of their loved ones, instead of trying to rebel against the ISIS - again, they should change oneself instead of changing the world?

No, I don't buy into that...

Individualism is the most important aspect of human life and the reasons you can even think of having such ideas as dualistic mind etc.
Individual liberty is THE reason we can even discuss these things and see the degrees between the two ends of a spectrum, as the OP puts it.

Good examples of the dualistic mind. One side affirms and the other denies. Classic dualism. Sometimes it is referred to as the pendulum effect. Yet some become aware that they are just part of a happening created by universal laws. Actually they are just slaves of force.

“Force is as pitiless to the man who possesses it, or thinks he does, as it is to its victims; the second it crushes, the first it intoxicates. The truth is, nobody really possesses it.” ― Simone Weil, War and the Iliad

For some reason some people become capable of witnessing the happening from a higher conscious perspective. Conscious witnessing is what reconciles dualistic thought. Some seek a way out of slavery to "force" for the sake of becoming human.

There seems to be two main reasons why the dualistic mind will dominate modern society. The first is the acquired hatred for ideas which reveal the fallen human condition and results in the dominance of imagination and hypocrisy. They are too insulting and threatening to Man’s imagined self importance which is why Jesus and Socrates had to be killed.

The second is the effect of spirit killers on the young. Secular progressives by definition must deny the limitations of secularism as it concerns the needs of the inner man. The effect is to suppress the normal human tendency in the young to open to our source and replace it with materialism and concerns of the world.

But fortunately there will always be a minority to serve as examples for what it means to transcend dualistic reason when contemplating the questions arising from the depth of our being. They will be open to the experience of both conscience and noesis. Einstein was one.

1930
"Many people think that the progress of the human race is based on experiences of an empirical, critical nature, but I say that true knowledge is to be had only through a philosophy of deduction. For it is intuition that improves the world, not just following the trodden path of thought. Intuition makes us look at unrelated facts and then think about them until they can all be brought under one law. To look for related facts means holding onto what one has instead of searching for new facts. Intuition is the father of new knowledge, while empiricism is nothing but an accumulation of old knowledge. Intuition, not intellect, is the ‘open sesame’ of yourself." -- Albert Einstein, in Einstein and the Poet – In Search of the Cosmic Man by William Hermanns (Branden Press, 1983, p. 16.), conversation March 4, 1930

Where the dualistic mind perpetually argues unrelated facts, the universal mind capable of deduction ponders these facts from a higher conscious perspective which reconciles them. Is it any wonder why this idea should be hated? It asserts that the arguments are meaningless and just reveal our ignorance. The fact that war seems necessary is proof of our collective stupidity. Such an idea is too insulting to consider and can easily get one killed.

Dualism is relativity as dualism is the foundation of particulate.

A cultural emphasis on relativity and relation effectually observes a continual degree of division.

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 27, 2018 10:33 pm Dualism is relativity as dualism is the foundation of particulate.

A cultural emphasis on relativity and relation effectually observes a continual degree of division.

I agree. The role of science is to discover and verify the particulate. It is an important calling. At the same time the calling to wisdom of philosophy and the call to objective human meaning and purpose is the domain of the essence of religion. Human consciousness is drawn to both wholeness and fragmentation. The question is how to reconcile them.

The trouble is that the dualistic mind is not equipped to contemplate wholeness. By definition it lacks the third dimension of thought which enables a person to feel objective value. Simone Weil wrote:

https://www.brainpickings.org/2015/06/2 ... ve-of-god/

What makes the abyss between twentieth-century science and that of previous centuries is the different role of algebra. In physics algebra was at first simply a process for summarizing the relations, established by reasoning based on experiment, between the ideas of physics; an extremely convenient process for the numerical calculations necessary for their verification and application. But its role has continually increased in importance until finally, whereas algebra was once the auxiliary language and words the essential one, it is now exactly the other way round. There are even some physicists who tend to make algebra the sole language, or almost, so that in the end, an unattainable end of course, there would be nothing except figures derived form experimental measurements, and letters, combined in formulae. Now, ordinary language and algebraic language are not subject to the same logical requirement; relations between ideas are not fully represented by relations between letters; and, in particular, incompatible assertions may have equational equivalents which are by no means incompatible. When some relations between ideas have been translated into algebra and the formulae have been manipulated solely according to the numerical data of the experiment and the laws proper to algebra, results may be obtained which, when retranslated into spoken language, are a violent contradiction of common sense.
Weil argues that this creates an incomplete and, in its incompleteness, illusory representation of reality — even when it bisects the planes of mathematical data and common sense, such science leaves out the unquantifiable layer of meaning:
If the algebra of physicists gives the impression of profundity it is because it is entirely flat; the third dimension of thought is missing.

That third dimension is that of meaning — one concerned with notions like “the human soul, freedom, consciousness, the reality of the external world.” (Three decades later, Hannah Arendt — another of the twentieth century’s most piercing and significant minds — would memorably contemplate the crucial difference between truth and meaning, the former being the material of science and the latter of philosophy.)

Science deals with the truth of the world while philosophy as the love of wisdom and the essence of religion lead us to open to objective human meaning and purpose.

Consider the question of morality. Right and wrong in relation to morality is classic dualism. The debate takes place on one level of reality. We are told this is right and that is wrong and people battle over it. Adding the third dimension of thought invites us to surrender our attachments to dualistic thinking and open to experience the wholeness of conscience which for us has devolved into the dualism of morality.

The universal mind knows that conscience is vertical soul knowledge connecting above and below while the dualistic mind argues man made interpretations of right and wrong from the horizontal perspective of daily life.

It’s not that dualism is wrong. The problem is that it is unaware of so doesn’t admit its limitations.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Tue Aug 28, 2018 1:04 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Mon Aug 27, 2018 10:33 pm Dualism is relativity as dualism is the foundation of particulate.

A cultural emphasis on relativity and relation effectually observes a continual degree of division.

I agree. The role of science is to discover and verify the particulate. It is an important calling. At the same time the calling to wisdom of philosophy and the call to objective human meaning and purpose is the domain of the essence of religion. Human consciousness is drawn to both wholeness and fragmentation. The question is how to reconcile them.

The trouble is that the dualistic mind is not equipped to contemplate wholeness. By definition it lacks the third dimension of thought which enables a person to feel objective value. Simone Weil wrote:

https://www.brainpickings.org/2015/06/2 ... ve-of-god/

What makes the abyss between twentieth-century science and that of previous centuries is the different role of algebra. In physics algebra was at first simply a process for summarizing the relations, established by reasoning based on experiment, between the ideas of physics; an extremely convenient process for the numerical calculations necessary for their verification and application. But its role has continually increased in importance until finally, whereas algebra was once the auxiliary language and words the essential one, it is now exactly the other way round. There are even some physicists who tend to make algebra the sole language, or almost, so that in the end, an unattainable end of course, there would be nothing except figures derived form experimental measurements, and letters, combined in formulae. Now, ordinary language and algebraic language are not subject to the same logical requirement; relations between ideas are not fully represented by relations between letters; and, in particular, incompatible assertions may have equational equivalents which are by no means incompatible. When some relations between ideas have been translated into algebra and the formulae have been manipulated solely according to the numerical data of the experiment and the laws proper to algebra, results may be obtained which, when retranslated into spoken language, are a violent contradiction of common sense.
Weil argues that this creates an incomplete and, in its incompleteness, illusory representation of reality — even when it bisects the planes of mathematical data and common sense, such science leaves out the unquantifiable layer of meaning:
If the algebra of physicists gives the impression of profundity it is because it is entirely flat; the third dimension of thought is missing.

That third dimension is that of meaning — one concerned with notions like “the human soul, freedom, consciousness, the reality of the external world.” (Three decades later, Hannah Arendt — another of the twentieth century’s most piercing and significant minds — would memorably contemplate the crucial difference between truth and meaning, the former being the material of science and the latter of philosophy.)

Science deals with the truth of the world while philosophy as the love of wisdom and the essence of religion lead us to open to objective human meaning and purpose.

Consider the question of morality. Right and wrong in relation to morality is classic dualism. The debate takes place on one level of reality. We are told this is right and that is wrong and people battle over it. Adding the third dimension of thought invites us to surrender our attachments to dualistic thinking and open to experience the wholeness of conscience which for us has devolved into the dualism of morality.

The universal mind knows that conscience is vertical soul knowledge connecting above and below while the dualistic mind argues man made interpretations of right and wrong from the horizontal perspective of daily life.

It’s not that dualism is wrong. The problem is that it is unaware of so doesn’t admit its limitations.

The dualistic mind is the premise of wholism:

1) All duals starts with the "whole" of 1.

2) This whole relative to itself observes the whole approximate to itself as a unit (rather than unity/whole).

3) The dual as the relation of wholes in itself is a whole as 3 in 1 where each dual is 1 and the relation of the duals is 1.

The dualistic mind is the premise of wholism:

If this were the case there would be no atheists. Science is involved with the laws of fragmentation. Wholeness is unnecessary. The problem of the dualistic mind occurs when it denies its limitations and its inbility to connect levels of reality

1) All duals starts with the "whole" of 1.

2) This whole relative to itself observes the whole approximate to itself as a unit (rather than unity/whole).

3) The dual as the relation of wholes in itself is a whole as 3 in 1 where each dual is 1 and the relation of the duals is 1.
Top

Dualism limited to one level of reality is why the concept of the Trinity seems so absurd. ONE and its conscious division into three initiating creation simultaneoulsy ARE. We experience the world in passing time so the idea of simultaneous existence seems absurd.

the dualistic mind is called third force blind. "As above, so below" is meaningless for it. There is just the visible world as witnessed by the dualistic mind. Being third force blind, the reality of objective conscience must seem meaningless since objective conscience is a product of the third force bringing meaning into facts..

Romans 2: 14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they are a law for themselves, even though they do not have the law. 15 They show that the requirements of the law are written on their hearts, their consciences also bearing witness, and their thoughts sometimes accusing them and at other times even defending them.)

Consider Paul’s observations with Plato’s”

Plato realises that all theories propounded by Cephalus, Thrasymachus and Glaucon, contained one common element. That one common element was that all the them treated justice as something external "an accomplishment, an importation, or a convention, they have, none of them carried it into the soul or considered it in the place of its habitation." Plato prove that justice does not depend upon a chance, convention or upon external force. It is the right condition of the human soul by the very nature of man when seen in the fullness of his environment. It is in this way that Plato condemned the position taken by Glaucon that justice is something which is external. According to Plato, it is internal as it resides in the human soul. "It is now regarded as an inward grace and its understanding is shown to involve a study of the inner man." It is, therefore, natural and no artificial. It is therefore, not born of fear of the weak but of the longing of the human soul to do a duty according to its nature.

Religion in so far as it is a source of consolation is a hindrance to true faith; and in this sense atheism is a purification. I have to be an atheist with that part of myself which is not made for God. Among those in whom the supernatural part of themselves has not been awakened, the atheists are right and the believers wrong.
- Simone Weil, Faiths of Meditation; Contemplation of the divine
the Simone Weil Reader, edited by George A. Panichas (David McKay Co. NY 1977) p 417

There is no tyranny more ferocious than the tyranny of morality. Everything is sacrificed to it. P.D. Ouspensky

To set up as a standard of public morality a notion which can neither be defined nor conceived is to open the door to every kind of tyranny. Simone Weil

“Never do anything against conscience, even if the state demands it.”― Albert Einstein

Taken as a whole, morality seems to be an interpretation of the dualistic mind of the human attribute of conscience. As such it becomes the opposite of its intent and becomes a means for acquiring power and control. Conscience in contrast is soul knowledge. It is imprinted on the heart and exists in us as covered over by worldly obsessions. We can awaken to conscience but as we have learned the ideas necessary to inspire awakening to soul knowledge are hated an rejected by the dominant conditioned dualistic mind of the world.

Once a person experiences the supernatural part of themselves as the third dimension of thought distinguishing between conscience and morality, the need for conscience in the world as well as the realization of the dangers of morality becomes obvious.

1954
“We will be destroyed unless we create a cosmic conscience. And we have to begin to do that on an individual level, with the youth that are the politicians of tomorrow…. But no one, and certainly no state, can take over the responsibility that the individual has to his conscience.” Albert Einstein, in Einstein and the Poet – In Search of the Cosmic Man by William Hermanns (Branden Press, 1983, p. 141. Conversation in Summer of 1954)

I know this appears cynical but I've seen enough of what is happening to the youth of today by the influence of media and indoctrination masquerading as education. It doesn't offer cause for optimism. The universal mind and the potential for opening to conscience is being atrophied in the world by the dominant dualistic mind content to battle over the shadows on the wall. I hope I'm wrong but the hostile rejection of the great ideas aimed at awakening the inner man doesn't offer much hope. The only saving grace is that gifted individuals will always be there for those willing to "annoy the Great Beast" in pursuit of experiencing objective human meaning and purpose.

One of the easiest ways to acquire a basic idea of what it means to be third force blind and be attached to the results of a dualistic mindset is by contemplating Plato’s cave allegory.

For those familiar with it we know that it provides a visual representation of prisoners in a cave chained in such a way that they only experience shadows on a wall so naturally assume them to be reality.

The prisoners do not realize that these shadows are being produced by puppet masters who move between the fire (the enlightened source of light creating the shadows) and the wall. Our attachments to the shadows create the chains which keep us fixated on the shadows. Plato asserts we have the inner soul potential to become free from these attachments and turn towards the light of enlightenment and finally towards the light of the sun itself which reveals the superficiality of the shadows which keep us in this psychological prison.

Of course the influence of the egoistic spirit killers and secularists having become the puppet masters do what they must to strengthen the attachments of the dualistic mind. They must deny the potential for the third force to provide the objective meaning of the shadows.

The third force is what reconciles the duality maintained by the struggle between the essential two forces often thought of as yin and yang. Dualism and the way of the world is only concerned with this interaction. Third force offers the conscious escape from animal dualism

“Problems cannot be solved with the same mind set that created them.”― Albert Einstein

Here is a little intro on third force which provides the way out from the prison of the dualistic mind. It is good for a start.

http://bepresentfirst.com/law-of-three/

………………..In a nutshell what the law of three means is that every action requires three forces. When three forces are present, things happen, actions are actualized. But without three forces—with one or two forces—nothing happens. There are different names for each force. The first force is called the active or positive or motivating force. The second force is called the negative or passive or denying force. The third force is called the neutralizing or facilitating or invisible force.
All esoteric laws, like the law of three, work both on the scale of our inner world and on the scale of the world around us, but it is often true that a law will be easier to observe in one or the other. I have personally found that the law of three is easiest to observe in my interactions with other people, so that’s what I’ll talk about here……………………….

Returning to the Cave allegory, The prisoners are psychologically attached to the shadows on the wall. It is maintained through dualistic interpretations. A person can open to the light of grace as the third force reconciling the duality of the interactions of the shadows from a higher conscious perspective. This invites inwardly turning towards the light and human freedom from cave life. Such person doesn’t fight over worldly right and wrong but just sees them as two sides of the same coin. The third force is the source of human consciousness – the conscious awareness of animal duality.

Recognition of the third force is a necessary part of freedom from the superficiality of reliance on the dualistic mind to open a person to the experience of objective human meaning and purpose. Once a person experiences what they have lost by emotionally participating as a creature of reaction, they can open to what it means to be a human being capable of conscious action connecting above and below.

Whatever debases the intelligence degrades the entire human being. Simone Weil

The role of the intelligence - that part of us which affirms and denies and formulates opinions is merely to submit. Simone Weil

How do her observations pertain to the dualistic mind? For me it means that the computer binary mind is a very useful tool but not the highest form of human intelligence. It can never provide the experience of objective human meaning and purpose the heart of Man is drawn to. Plato described our attachments to the results of the dualistic mind as being attached to shadows on the wall or devolutions of the reality the human quest for meaning is drawn to. The quest requires at some point the submission of the dualistic mind into a higher form of reason raising the question of what it is.

“Knowledge has three degrees – opinion, science, illumination. The means or instrument of the first is sense; of the second, dialectic; of the third, intuition.”
— Plotinus

Plotinus is describing sense based knowledge as dualistic and the weakest. The second is the dialectic based upon proofs like mathematics and the highest form is intuition as distinct from fantasy. Now Simone’s claim that it is essential for a person taking pride in their capacity for dualistic reason to become capable of submitting to a higher form of reason makes perfect sense. Of course it rarely happens. Pride and habit offer strong resistance

The intuitive mind is a sacred gift and the rational mind is a faithful servant. We have created a society that honors the servant and has forgotten the gift. ~ Einstein

This seems to be the case and it is getting worse. The dualistic mind is worshipped as proof of the superiority of the Great Beast and intuition is equated with fantasy. What is essential to experience the quality of being the essence of Man is called to is leaving the wold.

Suppose intuition is an aspect of the triune mind, can we respect it more once we agree as to what the triune mind actually is?

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... magination

.........For Einstein, insight did not come from logic or mathematics. It came, as it does for artists, from intuition and inspiration. As he told one friend, "When I examine myself and my methods of thought, I come close to the conclusion that the gift of imagination has meant more to me than any talent for absorbing absolute knowledge." Elaborating, he added, "All great achievements of science must start from intuitive knowledge. I believe in intuition and inspiration.... At times I feel certain I am right while not knowing the reason." Thus, his famous statement that, for creative work in science, "Imagination is more important than knowledge" (Calaprice, 2000, 22, 287, 10).
But how, then, did art differ from science for Einstein? Surprisingly, it wasn't the content of an idea, or its subject, that determined whether something was art or science, but how the idea was expressed. "If what is seen and experienced is portrayed in the language of logic, then it is science. If it is communicated through forms whose constructions are not accessible to the conscious mind but are recognized intuitively, then it is art" (Calaprice, 2000, 271). Einstein himself worked intuitively and expressed himself logically. That's why he said that great scientists were also artists.........

Einstein spoke of intuitive knowledge which transcends the limits of dualistic reason. It is awakening to the third force of our triune mind which opens us to the experience of intuitive knowledge natural for a higher level of reality. Simone Weil referred to it as the third dimension of thought.

For those who feel something of great value in what those like Plotinus, Einstein, and Simone Weil have referred to in this post, how can we understand it better and experience the difference between the impressions of our dualistic reason and the reason of our triune mind?