An astute reader emailed in response to Discussion on Non-Dualism and wrote
My general impression is that "non-dualism" can tend to make a fetish of dualism, rather than leaving it behind.
This was my reply:
==
Dualism certainly should be left behind rather than rebelled against. It's not even a great term for what it is describing. I just use it sometimes because it is the best index to other thinkers who have written on the subject. (So, as much as I knock labels, I have to admit they are useful -- necessary -- for finding more of what you are looking for).
Instead of dualism and its Two, I like to think of the spots where separations of all types break down (seep into one another?). My favorite piece where I show the dance of not being separated is Van Gogh Flow, although I don't mind my little diddy about my cat either. If the formulation didn't get bogged down in political overtones that I don't want, I would adopt the label "non-separatism." But that's really not going to work.
Keep in mind it was "filthy jeeper" who was the monist. If I am a monist, I am certainly not the fun type with woo-woo rays -- just materiality all the way down, with emergent properties playing the role of making it appear something else is going on.
But to me, every time I look at what works in the art of living, it seems clear that you have to live in the emergent and let the substrate be what it is. Maybe poke at the substrate every now and then for amusement, but it is not really Truer (other than holding in more cases globally speaking), and it is certainly not more useful.
