Mass Of Contradictions

 

It occurred to me this morning that my line of thinking is a mass of contradictions. Either I am a self-deluded fool (I hope not and think not.) or I actually do have a strong link to the Good Spirits, and they are sharing with me some profound, initially disturbing, but ultimately gratifying insights into the nature of the world and people.

 

Stance A: Epistemologically and ontologically (The law of noncontradiction and its very real, true exceptions—moderation—are logically operating as concepts that humans conceptualize, as well as serving as or the primary law of nature governing beings, things, actions in nature itself.) I am a moderate or dialetheist or “nondualist’ that agrees that some contradictory statements are true at the same time. I argue that truth is primarily either/or, following the law of noncontradiction, but it is also a bit both/and refuting the law of noncontradiction.

 

What is false or a lie then would be mostly contradictory to logic and what is going on out there in the world, but it would also be a falsehood or lie about the both/and aspects of logic and reality, and this may be most evident as totalistic thinking, exemplified by the true believer, the ideologue.

 

Stance B: And in the same breath, I am an ontological “dualist,” espousing that reality is partly, perhaps mostly spirit/mind/supernature, and is in part body/material/nature.

 

How do I reconcile this contradiction between accepting ontological nondualism, while, at the same time, asserting that reality is of two substances, both mental and physical?

 

I suppose the that my acceptance of nondualism under Stance A is my epistemological orientation to reality, and the dialetheistic statements about reality are the way that I make true or false statements about reality. Remember, I here advocate that the accurate account of reality as conceived and conceptualized must be framed in non-dualistic terms, abstractions and propositions, more than as dualistic terms, abstractions and propositions, but the language stating the conclusion of this epistemological stance must include a non-dualistic as well as a dualistic product in expression and characterization.

 

That nondualistic epistemology would not conflict with my ontological, dualistic interpretation of reality because my personal epistemology is a method for conceptualizing reality, a dualistic account of reality’s essence. To equate my non-dualistic epistemology as needing to be identical to me dualistic ontology is a misleading, false, and sterile comparison, because it is comparing apples to oranges.

 

If I advocated nondualistic and dualistic epistemological outlooks and approaches at the same time, in the same place, in the same manner, then this would be a false contradiction.

 

If I advocated juxtaposing nondualistic and dualistic ontology at the same time and in the same way, then I would be guilty of a false contradiction.