Simon Peter Bartley
Simon Peter Bartley
  • 10
  • 0
  • 0
  • 1
  • 98
Elias Mokbel emokbel

Sorry if my reply is too long, but I would like to comment on some points in the article.

By defining duality, you mentioned that it is ' two contrasting aspects working together to create something, in this instance the self '. So, we can deduce from this definition that the Self is "created" by these 2 contrasting aspects. Is it really true that the self is created by these 2 concepts ? How could 2 contrasting aspects "meet" or "agree together" to create one thing ? This statement makes us think that self wouldn't have existed without these 2 contrasting concepts.. and if these 2 contrasting concepts are eternal, that means that the Self is never free. That it is eternally dependent or enslaved by the perpetual conflict between these 2 contrasting aspects. So, by accepting this principle, it would become useless to the person to search for any "true" person within himself, for he will be eternally "created" by eternally fighting contrasting aspects.
My point is : self could never be created by 2 contrasting aspects. It can be influenced by them, yes. It can be seduced by one of them, yes. But not created by both of them.

On the other hand, talking about duality that existed in many cultures that had gods and goddesses and the disappearance (although not total) of this, and the appearance of monotheism, to be able to justify or to give an argument that duality is or has always been correct, is not true. Because talking about duality on the divine level, is not the same as talking about duality on material level. We know that duality exists on Earth, on the physical level, I mean. Day and night... cold and warmth...fertile lands and deserts...etc.
Without the succession of day and night, life would become impossible on Earth. That is true. It would be unreasonable, illogical, and unreal to deny that duality exists in life.
Duality on the divine level is something else. Why? Because when we talk about divine, we are talking about the principle of everything that exists. That is completely different from our talk on existing things. On the divine level, every ( and I insist on every) notion must be correct and true. So the fact that polytheism disappeared and people believe in one God does not mean , as an argument , that duality is, or was, or must be ,  necessarily , true. You could have one God. That would never influence duality. By the way, what is God ? Doesn't God mean the Creator of everything ? So how can we talk of different gods and goddesses, if God , by definition at least, is the Creator of everything ? (but that is another subject ).

Even if we have one God ( and I believe in one God), duality is not erased. Men and women exist on earth. But even in this context, duality is not a proper term. If you mean duality is 2 contrasting concepts, in fact, man and woman is not a duality. They are not contrasting. They are one , because they are both human. They have one essence: humanity. But they differ. They do not contrast like day contrasts with night. They are characterized by some specific aspects proper to each one of them, but they do not contrast, they complete each other. If Eve seduced Adam to disobey God, that doesn't mean that Eve is evil. This means that the Devil is evil. this means that Eve ( and to be more true Adam and Eve ) did wrong by disobeying God. They practiced evil, but they are not evil.

In one of the paragraphs, you mentioned that you were raised in a religion that is "paternalistic which does not accept the wonder of the feminine and how much it carries within it" .
What about the Virgin Mary ? What about female Saints ? Aren't they the ideal of every woman ? And if Christianity does not accept the wonder of the feminine, why did God choose a woman ( Mary ) to become his mother ?

If duality exists in the world ( man and woman ), this does not mean that WE should be dual. In fact, this is a contradiction. Since how could we be dual, and then accept that there is duality in the world ? if we all became dual, how could we distinguish who is different ? their would be no more man and woman. Only both !!.

And as for our chromosomes. It is true that we carry half of our mother's and half of our father's. But that does not mean we are dual. This is a natural and a logical consequence of 2 persons getting united to form one similar person. I am talking on the physical level. otherwise, what is the purpose of this unity if a baby could " sprout" directly from a man or from a woman ? And chromosomes are related to our bodies. And it is not the number of chromosomes that defines human on the personal level. If someone has Klinefelter syndrome ( additional chromosome) or Turner syndrome ( loss of 1 chromosome ), would they become less human ? or more human ?

Duality is present. But that has nothing to do with our self . Our self is one , and that does not mean that it is bounded, enslaved, or tightened by this principle. A dual personality is not 2 personalities , but only 1 personality that cannot find , or didn't find its self. A dual human personality is not evil ( strictu sensu ). It is a sick personality. And by sick I mean that it needs cure. it is not a judgmental adjective. Nothing is more painful than a dual personality, because it is a personality in perpetual loss.
I believe that the inequalities we see between men and women in our days is partly due to none of us finding his self. If a man accepts he is a man , and a woman that she is a woman, they both can live together and treat each other in complete harmony so as no man hurts a woman , and no woman demands anymore her rights.

Duality is true. We have olive trees and we have apple trees.
But an olive tree makes olives and an apple tree apples.