The Other Side of Things

In class, we have been talking a lot about being open-minded and the importance of possessing the Beginner's Mind - so that we may distinguish the gray areas and stop thinking so much in absolutes. The reality is that there is always another side. It is a dual world we live in - the pendulum swings both ways. This has come up in our group discussions as well - there's love versus hate, indifference versus passion, Classicism versus Romanticism, the mind versus the Being... etc, you guys get the idea. We're always supposed to be aware of the other side, the other perspective...

So my question is this: If this is a dual world we live in, a life full of dualities and "the other side", then what is the "other side", the duality, to this interrelatedness of everything/the collective unconscious? What's the otherside of this oneness? If the opposite of matter is anti-matter - or so claims Mr. Dan Brown in his novels - then would the opposite of oneness be... anti-oneness? Multipleness? O_O;.

And how does this "duality" and double-sided-ness of nature fit with "oneness"? If everything is one, then how can there be another side? The existenc of "the other side" suggests that there is something different about two ideas, that the ideas are polarized, but the how is that possible when everything is essentially one and therefore parts of the same thing? If everything is one, how is there another side? I know this sounds like I'm contradicting my earlier question - my intentions however are to clarify on the duality as well as the oneness of the universe.

I've got more follow-ups, but I'll leave you guys with these for now Jia-yoh everyone!! Can't wait to read your different ideas

Links coming soon.

[quote="Annie Fu"]So my question is this: If this is a dual world we live in, a life full of dualities and "the other side", then what is the "other side", the duality, to this interrelatedness of everything/the collective unconscious? What's the otherside of this oneness? If the opposite of matter is anti-matter - or so claims Mr. Dan Brown in his novels - then would the opposite of oneness be... anti-oneness? Multipleness? O_O;.

And how does this "duality" and double-sided-ness of nature fit with "oneness"? If everything is one, then how can there be another side? The existenc of "the other side" suggests that there is something different about two ideas, that the ideas are polarized, but the how is that possible when everything is essentially one and therefore parts of the same thing? If everything is one, how is there another side? I know this sounds like I'm contradicting my earlier question - my intentions however are to clarify on the duality as well as the oneness of the universe.[/quote="Annie Fu"]

Interesting, interesting.

I think that here, the ego-minded selfishness that leads us to cut off from the Universal Being and make us believe that we are the "only ones in the world" is what is the opposite to the oneness that we have learned through the Universal Being.

But then the whole anti-matter ordeal kind of reminded me of something -- anti-matter can't exist in this world naturally, or at least on earth. Anti-matter has to be created artifically for it to be seen. So does this somehow mean that the anti-oneness stuff is also something that is "artificial," like the ego-mind which is created through experience and societal conditioning?

LOL. It's interesting that you use Dan Brown since so many of my teachers think of him as a @#$%^. soo lol. he is entertaining tho, cant deny that. anyways, if you limit the world to one side and the "other side" then.. thats a pretty 2D world then isn't? And plus love and hate are both extremely similar in a way that they're both extremely intriguing and reactive in emotional aspects although love is quite positive and hate....isn;t. Both emotions means the subject cares. So they are similar yet different. Another possible opposite is indifference which is opposite because it isn;t reactive or intriguing in emotional aspects and the subject simply doesn;t care. But then passion could also be an opposite to indifference becuase their denotative meaning are virtually opposite. Then how do we complete the circle and relate love and passion?
Im only making this scenario to show that absolute opposites do not make two sides definitely. The world is rounded in that there are many sides to one thing and that these many sides create an allround connection which isn;t entirely based on polarity. Thats how the oneness fits in. :/ jsut a personal thought. im not definitaely right

Maybe all this talk of the "other side" is actually just another human tendency to label. If you are on one side of a wall, then of course you see the other side as....the other side. but if you are both sides and you are the wall. Makes no difference does it? Like you said, this is like making black and white distinctions, things pretty much relaly always lie in the gray area, anything that seems black or white is a result of our own personal bias and experience with the particular matter. Interesting question though, digs even further into the extent of the role perspective and personal bias plays in our view of the world.

yeah, first thing you think of is that we arent connected, one, and then one can develop an entirely new theory based on that concept. so how "against" is this opposite side? in the examples you listed (love versus hate, indifference versus passion, Classicism versus Romanticism, the mind versus the Being), the two sides coexist, right? though they are opposites, they can still work out to make something complete. i think. but then backing up to include oneness and it's opposite seems like a bit moe difficult task. does there mean that being one isnt the complete story? okk, i think i just kinda repeated your question there so i'll try again

the theory that we arent all one (the opposite theory) can, as rosa said, be just some illusion we make up. but is it really?

i think michael's hit somewhere big with his last paragraph...

Hi Fu

What if this ISN'T a dual world we live in?
Let's just say that all the opposites sprang from the source - essence. However, this doesn't mean that essence has to have an opposite.

Oh btw another pair of opposites is free-will versus fate. However, which one you abide your life is simply a matter of choice. Indeed it's just perspective what you think the other side of essence/collective consciousness is. lol "multiple-ness"
Hm if one believes that God IS the collective consciousness, does it mean that he has another side, an opposite? And don't say the devil because compared to God/collective consciousness the devil's role basically amounts to something as trivial as punishment, meaning you can't compare the two. if you believe in the devil that is -_-

Im only making this scenario to show that absolute opposites do not make two sides definitely. The world is rounded in that there are many sides to one thing and that these many sides create an allround connection which isn;t entirely based on polarity

Yes I agree with Joyce, Mike's paragraph here is important. He is distingushing the grey areas. I mean, can we ever agree on what the opposite of something IS?
A simple example is, do you think the opposite of blue is yellow or red? See? No one can pinpoint the exact polarity. What is the opposite of patience? Impatience, selfishness, or frustration?

Oh and Rosa, how can the ego-mind be artificial? It originated from our essence didn't it?

Is there really an opposite for something. Opposites probably are only from the ego mind, as what Michael said, or Rosa, or someone else. Taking the natural for example. Is there anything that is an opposite of an elephant? No, unless we start going into the labeling. Oh, elephants are big, or a hamster is tiny, thats an opposite. Then we go into Oh giraffe, it has a long neck, and an elephant has a long trunk with a short neck, opposite.

There is no opposite with oneness bah? Even if there is? Why bother finding out? Wont we just start to distinguish how the opposite of oneness if different in contrast with oneness? Just like how we classify the hell that is going on inside our brain. Oh yay, we re using left brain, damn hotness... we're now using our right, Crap my egomind is talking I better shut it down, and let the other part, my Being come through. Inside us, there is the Innerself, Being, Essence, Real you. There are so many different classifications... Whats the point? Same goes with the initial question, if we there is an opposite term, abstract thing for oneness or essence, what is the point in finding out? It ll just be processed into more labels, tags, categories when it is discussed in this thread.

Thoughts

Heyy guys I'm gona attempt to respond to some of your thoughts on this area =D

Rosa: What do you mean by anti-matter has to be created? I'm a bit confused on that point. But then the oneness encompasses both the egomind and the being, does it not? If so, then how can anti-oneness be created by the egomind (which is part of the being) and yet still be the opposite of the oneness? unless you're saying that anti-oneness is only a reality within our own minds?

Mike: Great distinguishing of the gray areas So you're saying that the world isn't necessarily a dual world - that's much too simple and in a sense, too "black and white", right? Because there are many facets of the world and there isn't just these two polar sides, that there are a lot more stuff in between? So then in a way love and hate are actually connected, and not completely on two opposite faces of a plane. And that "roundness" of everything is what's really called the oneness?

Ken: I think a lot of the discussions on the forum are for the satisfaction of our egominds, right? isn't it our egominds that are curious and always seeking to know more and label more to understand the world? Isn't that the function of the egomind in the first place - to help us deal with the physical world? (At least I think so? ANyone care to clarify?)

Joyce: are you saying that two seemingly polarized concepts actually make up a whole, and that is essentially the "oneness"?

Fiona: so oneness is where all these dualities sprang from, and thus there isn't necessarily another side of this oneness? lol what exactly defines artificial? made by humans? then again, anything that we make, any original action/thought we have, originated from the universal oneness, right? correct me if i'm mistaken!

Brad: seems like what you're saying is that you can't really be sure of what the opposite is, right? (just like what fi and mike said). but isn't the point f the forums to FIND OUT about things? i know these are probably all mind-based and not essence based, and these labels and tags you speak of aren't necessarily bad right? they evolved for a reason (according to darwinism) - perhaps to help us deal with the world. Maybe that's what we're trying to do with the forum - helping each other deal with understandig the world? If we all resolved to "nothing matters but the Being - all else can be forgotten," then would the human race be where it's at today?

Lots of thoughts guys, and it seems like what most of you are proposingis that this oneness is where everything came from, so there isn't another side to this. these dualities are merely concepts that help us deal with the world, and to view them too "black and white"ly would mean missing out on a lot of the gray areas. And thre really isn't a definite answer to what "the opposite of" something is, as Fiona pointed out. It's pretty much subjective.

Which leads me to my followup question. A lot of htings in this world are subjective - some even say that the truth is subjective, and it is a very debatable point of view. Really, the "truth" that we're struggling so hard to define, would be a product of the mind, right? because the mind is the thing that owuld label something as the "truth". What is true for one person may not be true for another - Bob may believe that God exists, while Billy may believe that there is no God. It's all very dependent upon one's own choice. So then... If truth and reality is subjective – dependent upon our own selves – then how is there an UNIVERSAL truth? A universal oneness?

Help! =D

What is true for one person may not be true for another - Bob may believe that God exists, while Billy may believe that there is no God. It's all very dependent upon one's own choice. So then... If truth and reality is subjective – dependent upon our own selves – then how is there an UNIVERSAL truth? A universal oneness?

Hmmm...Actually there are a lot of things human beings share. We share the same mind structure, body function, and even soul. What our minds build off from experience is what seperates us into unique creatures. A Universal Truth is probably some sort of inner feeling that is present in all of us...like love and hate. Im not too sure myself, but I assume the Universal Truth is just a thing we all share in common. Before you question me, ask yourself:" can there be truth?"
What truth have we really come up with? What the human race determines as truth is what we all widely accept...but that dosen't mean what we all believe is right. And now we talk of Universal Truth? Thats some serious deep wisdom we got to analyze! I mean, truth is usually taught from the experience, but experience holds bias. In order to really get truth...we must get it some other source like our own souls or greater intelligence. This is probably why people believe in God, because they cannot find truth themselves. To rely on some source strengthens the security of the belief that the truth is...well...true.
So really...is this Universal Truth just a widely accepted belief and a possible lie? Or does the Universal Truth trully hold something SO right and SO sagacious that we cannot deny and therefore name it "truth".

many things we call "truth" really are based on our personal perceptions; they become subjective. but what about the cold hard, objective facts? yeah, those might be "trivial" compared to the huge universal truths we're talking about. but these little details, the facts that make up the world around us. sure, properties can be called merely labels. what about laws, like gravity? it doesnt care whether you think it's true or not, it just keeps on doing what it does.

Perhaps there are some down to earth truths out there, such as what joyce said, gravity. It ll still pull us down even if we dont believe in the law of gravity. We can be George W Bush and say object to the theory that our would is currently in grave danger, because we are polluting it in an accelerating rate.

It Bob believes in god, Billy doesnt, those are opinions and they way we view things, they maybe labeled as the truth, but that is just the use of egotism to label it, so it's seemingly easy to understand. That probably isnt the real truth. The universal truth can be anything, from the most expected to the least, it might all matter with exploring Self to really find the truth.

If truth and reality is subjective – dependent upon our own selves – then how is there an UNIVERSAL truth? A universal oneness?

hmm, well, this made me remember the thing in the packet on literature history ms. kay gave us, like how truth is the product of a personal interaction with reality. I think this universal truth refers to the reality that actually is, not the one that we percieve. So um, lets say i believe that you annie, are not human, and that you are actually some weird mix of a donkey and a melon. Maybe you look like a donkey to me, or you have the attention span of a melon, but whatever I think about you is a result of what my senses percieve, and they are limited, so I can't know everything about you, and so i have to make do with what I DO know from my sight, hearing, taste, touch, and smell. But of course, in reality, you might actually be a human, and while I don't know that, the real world knows it. You are annie the human, and even if I think differently, you are still annie the human. This scenario is all theoretical of course.

Annie Fu wrote:Rosa: What do you mean by anti-matter has to be created? I'm a bit confused on that point. But then the oneness encompasses both the egomind and the being, does it not? If so, then how can anti-oneness be created by the egomind (which is part of the being) and yet still be the opposite of the oneness? unless you're saying that anti-oneness is only a reality within our own minds?

It's all very dependent upon one's own choice. So then... If truth and reality is subjective – dependent upon our own selves – then how is there an UNIVERSAL truth? A universal oneness?

First, to answer Fiona's question, I'm saying the ego-mind is artificial in a sense that it isn't with us when we are first born. Remember how Osho said that we are at the initial point, no-mind but this mind comes to being as we live on and collect experiences. So I'm saying that the ego-mind is something that is cultivated and built upon, not something that was originally there in the first place. Perhaps 'artificial' had the wrong connotations to what I was trying to say.

I don't know if you remember from the book "Angels and Demons," but it says that antimatter has to be created in a lab because it simply doesn't exist in our universe as we know it. I'm saying that the ego-mind can create the anti-oneness that you seem to question because when our ego-minds go into overdrive, it will become domineering and essentially cut us off from connecting to our souls and beings. I think the oneness is comprised of the MIND (not EGO-MIND) and the Being, but this harmony can be disturbed when our minds go into its overdrive state -- the ego-mind. By becoming separated from our beings, we are risking ourselves into becoming being further away from this oneness.

As for the universal oneness, I think that it is created through something that is even higher up than our pure beings and souls. Perhaps the Infinite Energy that is basically the pool of all souls. Also called as God/Higher Being. This Higher Being is the basis of where the souls come to being and this is where the universal oneness is created, thus making is objective from our mere physical world. This is a pure assumption...and a pretty short-lived idea too. I'd like to see other people's answers :]

HAHHAHAH kenneth. your example reminds me of the story of the blind men trying to describe what an elephant is by feeling a certain part of it (tail, trunk, legs, etc).
so i guess we're trying to say that there's 2 kinds of truth: personal truth and universal truth. personal truth is more than something you think is true. i mean like you REALLY have to believe in it. erm...like for example, you can't help but believe that's the truth. yes, it's perception-based. but it's different from when you blindly believe in something as the truth. and when i say blindly believe i mean that youre seriously blinded by something that's blocking your view to have a perfect vision. but i guess this truth almost goes into universal truth. so i'd categorize universal truth as something that doesnt care whether you believe it's true or not, it still keeps on doing what it does.
hope that made sense xD

edit: aha! i found the example i was trying to think of. rosa posted in hannah's thread the following:

Take Madagascar 2 for example. King Julian persuades everyone into believing that offering a sacrifice will cause the water to come back. The water did come back after the sacrifice. Except we know that there was Alex behind it. So one way or another, it came true when they believed in it, right?

so that's the blind believing i was talking about. well actually, i guess sometimes it's really hard to differentiate between the two (blind believing and what i've labelled as personal truth) because sometimes you just dont know the complete circumstance to have a more accurate perception. so i guess i mean when people are just stubbornly refusing to look beyond their biases and stuff

---------------------

to rosa:
i can see what you mean, about how the anti-oneness is an illusion made up by the egomind.
but (and i may very well be totally off) but i thought antimatter was created alongside with matter. like when matter was created, antimatter was also created. which is why the renactment of its creation made the scientists in Angels and Demons feel the power/secrets of God. (though my memory might be failing me)

rosAA wrote:
First, to answer Fiona's question, I'm saying the ego-mind is artificial in a sense that it isn't with us when we are first born. Remember how Osho said that we are at the initial point, no-mind but this mind comes to being as we live on and collect experiences. So I'm saying that the ego-mind is something that is cultivated and built upon, not something that was originally there in the first place. Perhaps 'artificial' had the wrong connotations to what I was trying to say.

Well, even if it isn't there with us when we are first born, the potential is there, and if you think about it, there are a lot of things that aren't there with us when we are first born, like teeth. Or pubic hair. But, my point is, if you take things in the context of, "if it wasn't "with us" when we were first born, it must be artificial." By your reckoning, teeth are "artificial."

It doesn't matter if the thing itself wasn't there at the beginning of our birth, as long as the potential was there, and it can be tapped in to, it's natural, it's still a part of us. Osho was right on that, but he neither stated directly, nor implied that the mind is artificial. Oh, nvm, just saw your last sentence, um, then yeah, artificial wouldn't be a very good word here.

Also:
"I don't know if you remember from the book "Angels and Demons," but it says that antimatter has to be created in a lab because it simply doesn't exist in our universe as we know it."

Key phrase here. We don't know everything, and there's a lot we don't know, it could be possible elsewhere in different conditions in the universe, that we don't know of.

Kenny wrote:

rosAA wrote:
First, to answer Fiona's question, I'm saying the ego-mind is artificial in a sense that it isn't with us when we are first born. Remember how Osho said that we are at the initial point, no-mind but this mind comes to being as we live on and collect experiences. So I'm saying that the ego-mind is something that is cultivated and built upon, not something that was originally there in the first place. Perhaps 'artificial' had the wrong connotations to what I was trying to say.

Well, even if it isn't there with us when we are first born, the potential is there, and if you think about it, there are a lot of things that aren't there with us when we are first born, like teeth. Or pubic hair. But, my point is, if you take things in the context of, "if it wasn't "with us" when we were first born, it must be artificial." By your reckoning, teeth are "artificial."

It doesn't matter if the thing itself wasn't there at the beginning of our birth, as long as the potential was there, and it can be tapped in to, it's natural, it's still a part of us. Osho was right on that, but he neither stated directly, nor implied that the mind is artificial. Oh, nvm, just saw your last sentence, um, then yeah, artificial wouldn't be a very good word here.

yeah, i know we've said this countless of times, but we're given the egomind for a reason. (i think i've kinda lost why this was picked out in the first place, so excuse me if i'm wandering off on a tangent) so we know it's not bad that we have it - as Ms. Kay has mentioned in class now. she also said that we can't be just pure energy forms, that we need to be physical (i think thats what she said) so even though we started off without it, we still needed it to form.
and i love you argument examples kenneth (haha this is like the 3rd time i've said i like something you said today! xD)

Also:
"I don't know if you remember from the book "Angels and Demons," but it says that antimatter has to be created in a lab because it simply doesn't exist in our universe as we know it."

Key phrase here. We don't know everything, and there's a lot we don't know, it could be possible elsewhere in different conditions in the universe, that we don't know of.

ohok, thanks kenneth

Hey guys! Thanks for the discussions
I'm not done going through the responses yet, but I'd like to post some comments from the outside forums that got me thinking!!

In order to substantiate subjective reasoning there must be an objective experience to the subjective. Even tho the belief that the earth was flat and there was fear and anxiety regarding this belief in those who would sail so far out onto the ocean and panic, those feelings or beliefs never changed the sphere we inhabit into a pancake.

Everything is relative. Up is the opposite of Down, however their use is relative to the observer. Exactly the same with emotions, time, space, language, etc. As relative constructs have no definite place, they have to be viewed as infinite equal spectrums (oneness). For example, every spot in space can be up, and every spot in space can be down, so the answer to your question is that duality and oneness exist at the same time.

Oneness is not so much as a state as an understanding. You are already one with the universe, or rather the entire universe is one things and you are an intregal part of that one thing. The term oneness refers to the enlightened understanding of that fact and its ramifications.

So yes you can be in a state of anti-oneness insofar as you may have not yet been enlightened to it. As all definitions have an a negative to them. I would not say dual because it is not necessarily opposite. But if it isn't the defenition it isn't the definition. Whatever is not a dog is not a dog. This is an experiential form of the semantic. Yet as a matter of existence and oneness there is no negative or opposite to oneness, because all is one, and all is everything. which has a semantic opposite (nothing) but not a material extant opposite or even a negative. Because everything is an absolute as is oneness.

I thought those were some very thought-provoking comments. What do you guys think?


---EDIT----
And here's another follow-up that relates to this duality that we've been discussing (or non-duality?)
Popular Romanticism topics include the past, because the Romanticists believed in searching for essence in all the different stories of the past. The essence drawn from several different stories would piece up to a whole – that would be the universal essence, correct? That would mean, then, that all the stories of the past must have had something in common, some common essence on which they are built. What’s that common essence in opposing ideas, then? The common essence between optimism and pessimism? Between Classicists and Romanticists? What’s the gray area between love and hate? Between heaven and hell?

It seems to me that the Essence of All That Is loves diversity. It/He/She wishes to experience the full range of perceptions and experiences.

As I see it, we are all connected within our collective subconscious. That realm of reality does not have a concept of seperation, only diverse expression.

John

oo, i like the first two quotations
the first one is like saying how there are actually some realities our thoughts cannot create. the "blind beliefs" are trying to control the "universal truths' but it doesnt work. so is that the limit to 'thoughts creating reality'?

for second one, everything is relative, is kinda similar to what my 'personal truth" was saying. i dont know why, but when i read that one, the word 'choice' just popped up and stayed in my mind.

okay the ken's reply about the potential thing.

isn't there a difference between what I was saying about what is artificial though? Think about it. Teeth and uhh pubic hair (?) have the potential to grow the way they were originally "programmed" to be. Whereas the ego-mind DOES have the potential to grow, it is changed according to what kind of experience all of us go through. What makes up our teeth and pubic hair is all the same for everyone, whereas the functionings of the ego-mind and what makes up the ego-mind is different for everyone. you guys get?

and for the anti-matter thing, i guess ken has a point that it is quoted as "UNIVERSE AS WE KNOW IT." Does this mean that somehow the opposite of oneness isn't absolutely defineable in the universe as we know it? But then again it will sorta contradict the concept of unlimited potential. Okay, I'm rambling here but I believe it's time to drop the whole anti-matter though. hehe.

In order to substantiate subjective reasoning there must be an objective experience to the subjective. Even tho the belief that the earth was flat and there was fear and anxiety regarding this belief in those who would sail so far out onto the ocean and panic, those feelings or beliefs never changed the sphere we inhabit into a pancake.

True that.Objective experience to the subjective...I think that's really important. One way or another, our subjective reasoning and belief has to meet up with the objective things out there, right?

Doesn't this kind of relate to how far the law of attraction can affect physical reality once more?

Annie Fu wrote:Popular Romanticism topics include the past, because the Romanticists believed in searching for essence in all the different stories of the past. The essence drawn from several different stories would piece up to a whole – that would be the universal essence, correct? That would mean, then, that all the stories of the past must have had something in common, some common essence on which they are built. What’s that common essence in opposing ideas, then? The common essence between optimism and pessimism? Between Classicists and Romanticists? What’s the gray area between love and hate? Between heaven and hell?

Isn't the common essence of opposing ideas more like what the ideas are for? Let's take optimism and pessimism. The common essence is here is probably something like "expectations and attitudes for the future." This is a really interesting take, however, Annie :] Wouldn't the common essence for all those many concepts have to do with people's take on life and trying to find meaning in life?

Heyy guys, read over the posts, and got some replies for you all

Andy: Following your line of thinking, then isn't everything that we're talking about here just another human concoction, which would hold a bias of some sort? Can we say then, that there is a God/Supreme Being?

Joyce: How can we be sure that that is the truth tho? What if to person A that is an apple on the desk, while for person B that apple is only a round red mass? Is it possible that we're all touching upon some parts of the truth, but that we're talking aobut it in different perspectives? And at the risk of sounding like JT.... what IS truth? What if the "consensual" truth is only true for humans and not animals? Can we ever be sure, or does it all depend on faith... and belief? How can we tell which is the personal truth, and which is the universal? Could there be an "Alex" behind basically everything we think is true? And to your reply to the quotes: that's a really good question! HAHA that's so unhelpful... but i wonder too, does that then mean that thoughts creating reality has boundaries? Is there no UNlimited human potential? the second quote.. could it be that since everything is relative, the truth is really just there, but we all create diff. versions of it based on our CHOICE of perception?

Brad: and say someone were to firmly believe that gravity does not exist? What about the people who are thoroughly convinced that spirits exist, vs people who thoroughly believe that they dont? What if they view their viewpoints as "cold hard facts" like we view gravity?

Ken: haha yeah that's actually where I got this quesiton from. and.. - this is weird - ... what if i'm not really human? Like what i said to brad, could these "cold hard facts" be another product of our subjectivity? And on your reply to Rosa's comment. Is it possible for us to perceive the universal truth, then, if everything we know is processed through our brain and most likely contains some sort of bias? Is the truth actually too mindblowing for us to know it? (like how if we could see the infrared and UV lights it would blow our minds?)

Rosa: Hmm interesting point.... that reminds me of someone else's post on another forum. So then this antioneness could be an illusion created from our minds? So everything originally sprouted from this oneness? but then now cam we disengage from this oneness, if everything's basically from this oneness? Am i even making sense?! O_O And to your reply to ken's ... uhm ken-like assertions, what do umean the egomind components isn't the same for everything? I thought everyone's brains had the prefrontal cortex and white matter, gray matter, cerebrum..etc? and to your next post (and htis will probably sound weird) are our thoughts REALLY affecting the objective truth? or does it only affect our personal truths? and your comment about the essence between the two opposites reminds me of the pendulum swing yet again - since the two endpoints (not chemistry endpoints) of the swing are connected, there must be some middleground between two opposing ideas then, huh?

John: Hey there =D Thanks for offering that - diversity, not separation. That's really thought-provoking, and highly plausible

Actually, please read my replies to everyone's, because they include questions that I would like to ask everyone. Please and thank you guys! =]

yeah, i guess there is like no way to know what the pure actual truth is because there are so many factors contributing to YOUR truth that could be different from MY truth. which makes interacting with people that much harder @_@

Hi Annie. Wow i spent some time looking over everybody's posts and let me just say, this is the one topic that i've had to run over and over again in my head, double-questioning, and countering every thought i had. lol

Well, i don't really have an answer, sorry.
BUT. I think what Ms.Kay said in class the other day fits your question very well. I guess you can try and think of the Universe as--- well the Universe. Big,VAST, Grand, Phenomenal, Mysterious, Inexplicable/unfathomable... yes. But we're apart of it. So i guess there are dualities, and double-sidedness/triple-sidedness. (Kinda like what you were saying with Romanticists/Classicists. I think that the Universe is full of dimensions and layers of mysteries that can never be known to us, humans. we only go so far as what our eyeballs can see, what our ears can capture as sound, what our senses can touch and feel, and what our consciousness holds as wisdom from past lives and all of our potential we choose not to ignore and intuition etc etc. Now you might wonder... doesn't that make us so powerful? yeah but no. we only kind of go so far, (i believe) there is a limit to how much we can actually know. To be is to know. to experience is to know. We can't be in a state of knowing everything. it's impossible. We're only human. Yes we can do anything-- in accordance to unlimited human potential and trancendence-- however, it's only in this physical domain. THoughts create reality--this reality is actually really small (only in our eyes-big) compared to the UNIVERSE. THE UNIVERSE is unknowable. We can only be a part of it. There so much that we can't prove. So basically there's bound to be dualities/double-sidedness.
In another theory-- perhaps all the optimism+pessimism and double-sideness can end up in oneness? Because, perhaps the underlying essence is the same, connected? Maybe not in terms of OUR physical world, but in terms of the Universe, in which everything makes sense in Universal terms. I doubt that the universe is only limited to what we know. I strongly strongly doubt that. Maybe the basis of the UNiverse, the support/base of all the different dimensions and dualities might be connected in some sense-- thus fulfilling oneness/wholeness? have you given thought to the fact that although we're apart of the universe... our world is simply a microcosm of the UNiverse..? Like, in the Bigger picture, the UNiverse... there IS oneness, like how there is in our world (essence and Being) however, the Universe is much more complex that surpasses and exceeds beyond just our physical, quantum, non-local domain and our instinctual minds,prefrontal cortext, egomind? I don't know the answer to anything i've just suggested.. they're just thoughts. Because your topic is so broad i just kind of free-wrote.

http://eckhart-tolle-forum.inner-growth.info/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=5946

Annie! this is a post talking about dualities/non-dualities and such. YUP! hope you find your answer!