Dichotomy: Self vs. Others

“To be, or not to be, that is the question:
Whether 'tis Nobler in the mind to suffer
The Slings and Arrows of outrageous Fortune,
Or to take Arms against a Sea of troubles,
And by opposing end them: to die, to sleep
No more; and by a sleep, to say we end
The Heart-ache, and the thousand Natural shocks
That Flesh is heir to?”

Vanity. Is that not what the point of Hamlet’s words were?

Perhaps or perhaps not.. Depending on your perception of the problem, the problem itself can take on a meaning that is never explained by facts. Just as the denial of one’s own propensities makes an individual foolish in the eyes of others and is a blinding arrogance, also is the ignorance caused by selfishness.

Vanity is rather simple. Anything that only prevails in the short term or anything that serves to destroy what is good is vanity. Sometimes I prefer to use the word meretricious instead of vanity, because it accurately describes the perception of something good that is really a deception. I earnestly believe that the smallest joys in life are long term and that the greatest glories witnessed in this Universe are a testament to something much greater. Prevalent is the ideology, “For the greater Good”. However, mediocre is the response to endure suffering, misfortune, or victimization. Yet society tells us that anything else is cowardice, destitution, arrogance. By what comparison can such secular claims be substantiated when everyone has the right path, as if there is no danger to all the paths?

If it appears that I’m asking loading questions then it must also appear that I’m generalizing a concept based on dissonance. There is a lot of truth to that, especially in light of my personal opinion regarding the pursuit of moral high-ground within the flood of debauchery that penetrates a heart hardened by the environment. I sympathize with any human, even the privileged. However, I’m not privy to gullibility by believing a one-sided story as the conclusion of a twist in a real-life plot. My silence is not because I am without an opinion or wisdom, it is because the ears to hear my words are not able to discern what they hear. I find it very difficult to juggle between objectivity and empathy when admonishment and a second opinion is nigh, even if it means respect for me is lost. A fool can not understand the words of the wise, because the fool can not understand what separates them from the wise until the fool learns the folly of their ways.

I have no proposition or philosophy to bring a solution that isn’t the words of others. I have the choice to talk about what I think, all day long, but I don’t have the option of making sense to those my words are intended to reach. This is because I am not able to cause conviction of hearts or enlighten souls. I can do my part to help plant the seed, but the increase comes from elsewhere. This doesn’t mean it is any less difficult to accept my limitations even though I do not bow down to the limitations.

I could just spell everything out, but I am appealing to those who can’t accept the truth and those who believe the truth comes in many forms. In time I will spell things out concisely and without hesitation. However, I fear of that time because it will be evident that a gentle whisper must become a deafening roar.

What I suggest to any individual is the relinquishment of control. The fact of reality is that we have no control, outside of the self. We are born without choice, we are subjected to many things without choice, and we can fight to the death to manifest our own will. However, all must realize the cold, hard truth that the most basic principle to human existence is that we must make choices that affect us personally and also others.

Certainly there is a false dichotomy. Humanity is symbiotic to the planet and also within itself. The most obvious conclusion is to maintain a universal essence of some kind, be it through virtues or domination. What we aren’t told is that there is no hope in this world that is by the power of humanity. No man, woman, child, invention, or principle can change that. That is why the greatest hope is not found through the intricacies of sophistication or interconnected consciousness. Prolonging the inevitable is coping, which isn’t a cure. If there is any hope for humanity, it is beyond the power of the universe; humanity is the immovable object and the Universe is an unstoppable force that have collided. Humanity may have a great gift of being unique from the rest of it’s surroundings, but it is humanity’s perception that must change because it is humanity that desperately needs hope.

I have found that hope, along with billions of others. The fight isn’t over, because billions more need to awaken and see the light. Yet no one will see the light if they do not feel it’s warmth from those who hold it in their hands.

Halcyon Dreams Left A Scar

hal·cy·on Adjective /ˈhalsēən/ 
Synonyms:adjective: quiet, calm, placid, tranquil, still, peaceful,serene, composed, restful, quiescent, smooth,reposeful, pacific, stilly

1. Denoting a period of time in the past that was idyllically happy and peaceful

Dreaming is a powerful experience of a living creature. During times of rest, the mind doesn't slow down to a halt and neither does the body. In most cases, the mind and body become very active in a much different way than the woken hours. Experiencing dreams is sometimes euphoric or frightening. Learning important principles or having a life-changing epiphany can happen within a dream. For some people experiencing a lucid dream is what changes their perception of fundamental principles or overlooked concepts. For others it is the inability to control the mind and thus be subjected to the greatest obstacles of the subconscious which creates a new platform of character development and intuitive insight.
My dreams are a distorted version of reality, mixed with my imagination, ambition, fantasy, and fear.

There is another type of dreaming that doesn't take place during the sleeping hours of our existence, it is akin to where we develop our ideas of the future and how we desire reality to become as time passes. This is a visualization process that has a profound power over the present and can influence the course of emotions because of success or failures in regards to manifesting what isn't the present reality.
Some people call it ambition, some call it fantasy, some go so far as to call it delusion. However, what each individual wishes for reality is sometimes just a matter of inevitability and others it is a matter of the impossible, improbable, and far-fetched.

This world teaches, through media and story telling, that the impossible is just a matter of circumstance. Either you are not born into the right family, you aren't gifted with the right talents, or you haven't worked hard enough towards your aspirations. It is much more common to that there are conditions to these aspirations because of conditioning to dream only as high as our predecessors have gone. Which is why it is so common to hear children speak of being in a position that someone else has aspired to.
Perhaps robbing a child of their imagination is when they only try to aspire to heights that have already been traversed. The magnitude of the raw-dreamer is lost at the base of the mountains that should only be a platform for reaching beyond the stars. At worse, maturity brings a sense of realism that is detrimental to the once limitless imagination. Instead of freedom in thought, there is slavery in emotion.

Breaking free of the perpetual spiral of survival is more than enlightenment, it is a journey towards a total transformation of being.
Does the caterpillar know what it's metamorphosis within the cocoon will be like or what the result will reveal? This is the heritage of the caterpillar that is instilled to the next generation. Maybe if the caterpillar were brought down to reality, told not to store up for itself for the coming days because of anxiety of statistical probability of survival, the caterpillar would refuse to make it's cocoon to begin the mysterious process of transformation. What a sad story it would be if that caterpillar were in love with another caterpillar and was left behind because it's love refused to obey the synthetic anxiety of fear of the unknown and thus trusted instinct and natural function instead. Spinning a cocoon as do the other caterpillars and becoming something out of reach to her could-be mate.
If the doubting caterpillar is anything like a human, there would be a point of no return, mentally. A point where the caterpillar is so set in it's ways that it refuses to observe reality for what it is, because pride and arrogance have falsely become safety and reassurance.

Arguably there are plenty of people who live life as if it is nothing more than a dream, even a nightmare.
What are we people robbed from other than the chance of perfection?
I do not subscribe to the ideology that vibrating to the right frequency will manifest a life of bliss. In fact, I think the more an individual finds parts of 'perfection' the more that individual is subjected to the darkness that rules this world from behind the scenes. If that seems far fetched, then look at the proud and celebrated people of popularity; their lives mean so much one day yet they are destitute by tomorrow. Short lived, vanity at it's plateau? Not really.. However, a great example of the unreliability of the material 'goodness' in which they aspire to. A fairy tale dream that really says, "Happily ever NOW"

This conclusion comes with dire implications as well as a heartfelt grief for all who suffer.
We don't live in our dreams, our dreams don't live without us. Because of our finite attribute as individuals and the enormous variance of desires, should we not gather as a race and aspire to a common character?
I think the answer is more than yes.. It shouldn't just be a word response, it should be an emotional upheaval that has a shout that's great enough to shake the mountains and the foundation they sit on.
Until that day, I'll be standing tall in the depths of the abyss, reaching out beyond the stars while respecting my limitations. Because I know it is not by my own manifestation that I exist. Therefore, it will not only be by my own will that I succeed.
Join me, least our dreams be nothing more than a scar we want to heal.

Same Name, Different Game

Real, Realistic, and Reality.

These are of the same essence just like a Man, Woman, and Child are Human.

Different purposes achieving a common goal even though there are different roles.

Who has heard of the impossible triangle of business? 

It goes by different names, but the principle doesn't change.

The fundamental basis is three categories and how profit is tough to maintain if they all connect.

Essentially it is: Cost, Speed, Quality.

The principle could be put into an engineering principle of Thermodynamics of any system.

However, unlike physics, the business model displays a clear desire to maximize everything while putting in hardly anything and coming out with a profit.

Sounds familiar in regards to most corporate manufacturing processes, I think.

It may seem easy in theory, but the difficulty arises in the face of competition. The reason why is because sometimes someone just wants something cheaper, or faster, or higher quality. Picking one of the three attributes without caring much for the other two.

If it's hard to understand, consider how the Fast Food business is.

Sure, you have your speed and the cost is low.. The quality however, is horrific to the eye and even to other parts of the body. This is not consistent to every fast-food chain, but some sacrifice a bit of speed to give quality (which it may just be slow but it's more satisfactory). In fact, some maintain speed and quality, but sacrifice low cost. Then on  the far side of the food spectrum are those who sacrifice speed and cost for the sake of highest quality (ironically, nature does this very thing for good reasons).

Before I make my point confounded for the sake of explaining a concept, I'll wrap this explanation up.

This triangle is a juggling experience. Balance can be obtained, but the glory of the juggle itself is achieved when a lack of balance doesn't lead to catastrophic consequences. Which, in the business sense, leads to forfeiture of customer loyalty, business integrity, and economic longevity.

When I brought up Real, Realistic, and Reality I was suggesting the impossible triangle.

The reason why the triangle is impossible, in this case, is because of a 3 dimensional aspect.

If you thought I was confounding my point, then realize now I'm stepping into the realm of higher cognitive processing. This should come easy to anyone who can entertain themselves with their imagination, otherwise I suggest getting something to draw with. Because this is simple geometrical conceptualization. I should be able to nail this within one paragraph.

What's real is reality, but that doesn't make it realistic; neither is it harmful or beneficial. It isn't the future, but it was present even though it is in the past. What's realistic is real, but that doesn't make it reality; neither is it necessary or harmful. It isn't the present, but it is in the future and the present. What's reality is real, but that doesn't make it realistic; neither is it beneficial or necessary. It is the present, but it will be in the past.

That must be tough to understand, I don't care how intuitive you think you are. Because this concept requires more than thinking outside of the box, it requires thinking outside the sphere that contains the box. In fact, language is a barrier for this concept because I have to structure my English properly while sacrificing concepts in order to maintain visualization.

Geez.. The triangle strikes again!

Maybe we shouldn't call it a triangle since the crux is maintaining equilateral distance?

So now the point, if I haven't lost you to the abyss of confusion.

How do we humans, equipped with the greatest quantum computer (yes, it is. Scientists are agreeing that the complexity of the brain is in the far, far higher realms of quantum processing) on his planet, delegate equilateral 'fairness' to the impossible triangle, so that it is very much possible?

I don't 'feel' it is impossible, I believe that the problem is solely of complexity.

Then again.. Complex, vague, esoteric.. Same Name, Different Game. 

Grand Candle Light

The light of a candle is subtle and useful.
Candle light is not blinding to the eyes, yet candle light provides enough light to illuminate a path.
Limits of a candle are only by the imagination and flammable objects.

Darkness can cover the face of all objects with such intensity that they seem devoured by it, but one candle light makes the darkness flee from its presence. Though the candle light can only push the darkness away in proportion to the strength of its light.
How ironic it is that a Flood light, sucking up a hundred times more energy to create its blinding brilliance, is unable to make an effect that is proportionate to its use of energy. In fact, the only true difference is that the things revealed in darkness by a flood light are a bit clearer to see.

The life of the righteous has never been marked by their intensity or their energy. Their subtle endurance to keep the darkness at bay, providing a gentle and revealing essence of the world around. However, some people may want to see all the nasty details of the world around them for some reason. Thus they use a flood light with a microscope. Perhaps they believe this is the path to Truth?

Anything that reveres darkness is quick to squelch light, be it the flood light or the candle light. To them, the only difference between the two is how to snuff the light. Between the two, the most profound difference is that the flood light can not perpetuate its existence endlessly. The candle light, though humble in appearance and seemingly meaningless to the bigger picture, is capable of multiplying.. Perhaps into a raging inferno that engulfs everything that was hidden in the darkness.

How surprising it is when someone gazes upon a candle light and the only thing they can do is mock its subtle nature. A lack of appreciation for the timeless advantages it's provided and a lack of understanding of its hidden rage.

"Shine bright, little candle light" Says the mockery of those enjoying the darkness.
"My blight! From one little candle light!" Screams the mockers when all is ablaze by that one little light.

The fright of the might of the candle light in the night to unite with pyrite from sinful blight...


When did those creatures in the darkness forget that things die without the light?
Surrounding themselves with the shame of fodder, the fuel for that blaze when it started around their feet.
Had anyone even realized that they were walking on the strength of the rage of that little candle?
Just like a forest floor covered with the past, dead to the world and ready for burning.

If only those in darkness could respect the light.. Those surrounded in darkness and forced to walk in it are never so arrogant to knock over the candle light. Even when they are laid down to sleep, before that candle light is snuffed because it served its purpose, they share that little candle light to others who use it as a guide.

If the flood light could fathom the power within the little flame of the candle light, it would quiver in fear of the destruction it can bring if not respected. Isn't it a shame it is arrogant enough to spout its artificial light everywhere?
How is this any different from those who spout their righteousness everywhere like a flood light, blinding everyone who is still in shrouded in darkness, causing them to fear the light instead of respecting its goodness?

Ahhhh...
The Grand Candle Light.
A beautiful sight when many are gathered together.

Vanity Under the Sun

There is a saying that the vanity of human life is best expressed by the lack of profit to eternally enjoy, all of it from our labor under the sun. The idea is that human hands are worked to the bone for profit, of some kind, yet nothing is kept beyond death. In many cases, an entire life is spent acquiring something materialistic. Some people believe this pursuit to be an absolute necessity to reap profit, some believe reincarnation to be the manner of profit and each life time to be a pursuit to an even greater goal, and some simply don't know what to think. I fall into the category of people who see death as the end to this life, but not the end of life (I don't believe in reincarnation into a new life in this world). There is one other view that is not commonly expressed that deserves more attention than the views of what is after death, because it defines the value of things while we're still alive, persuaded to believe we can reap our rewards. This view relates to the temporal understanding of birth to death; it isn't based on gender, nationality, culture, or creed. The view relates to the mannerisms of any individual and it influences any and all pursuits. From here an individual can determine the nature of sincerity as well as the long-term importance of their actions and/or goals.
I am speaking of the Vanity Under the Sun.

I am a strong believer in the nature of living life for the better of the human race, be it that you start with your family or with the community. I am not an aspiring guru of some Spiritual philosophy and I am not aiming to be a priest of some religious sect. I am just pointing out something obvious that shouldn't be reserved for philosophy. It is a way of life, it is a determining factor that explains the point of life, and there is no substitute for this unless there is an open objection to any kind of absolute. That is because the vanity found in life is not because life is vain, it is because people live vainly. They can only see the forest and not the trees; shortsighted and selfish is only the tip of the iceberg and it is by no means the only manner of delineation between good character and evil.

What is vanity?
Out of all the ways to use the word, it isn't always a bad thing, but in this case I am using the meaning of futility and worthlessness. I am going so far as to point out the highest degree of depravity that an individual can experience. It is in the order of a Rich man in a Mercedes pulling up to a homeless man, giving them seventeen cents and telling that homeless man that is all they have to give, hoping to get a response of thanks for their charitable deed. Now doesn't that sound depraved of any humility or genuine compassion?
Take a closer look though and you may be surprised of what the possibilities are, that tell you otherwise.
The vanity is not in the thankfulness of the homeless man, or the act of giving from the rich man.
The vanity could be said to be in the hope of the rich man not being perceived as a liar, a hypocrite, and a haughty accessory in the eyes of the homeless man; or even worse, not being those things in the eyes of whatever higher authority that rich man may perceive as the judge of his supposed righteousness.
We can say that the vanity is that the rich man was being arrogant. Yet we could assert he really was broke at the time and wanted to give instead of make excuses. How far can we go if we can even say that none of it matters because that rich man is the head of a charity organization and happens to work at the local homeless shelter on the weekends so his act was to establish rapport. Do you see it yet?
The vanity isn't in the story itself, it's in us as we listen to the story. 
Isn't it fun that the vanity of understanding the meaning of the story yields an understanding of the vanity of our assumptions? That's to say the realization came even after I explained..

The reason why I use a rich man and a homeless man to make a point is because people are often sucked into the belief of contrast. This is not unreasonable since it is through contrast that we learn important things that lend a hand to the process of maturity.
The strongest contrast in all societies that have ever existed is that riches determine success in life. More or less, it is the material wealth we acquire in our life time that establishes our ability to get what we want and most people sum their existence by what they want. Be it Love from a Spouse, kids, a house, a car, a good paying job or one that is simply enjoyable, or it be social acceptance, and maybe even some stroke of genius that changes lives.
Regardless of what can be acquired in this life, there seems to be a worthlessness to it all in the end if the sum of life was only the temporary happiness brought by the triumph of goals. I make this statement knowing that many people will disagree and that is ok.

What is humankind that it would be so arrogant to put the value of life in the accomplishments brought on by hands working for the benefit of the self? Isn't the sustenance of life just a necessity, not the point of it's existence?
Is the blood, sweat, and tears of humanity just the sum of the struggle for success or is it the painful realization that something isn't right about this existence that life's purpose is to fight against depravity in every moment?
It might seem odd for some people to hear that the true triumph of life is in death because none of the vanity matters any more. Perhaps that's why most people call death the eternal rest. From what I recall, no amount of work is worth it's weight in gold unless the people who worked can rest and behold the glorious fruits of their labor (that is to insinuate they can partake in it, much like working to grow food is for a very reasonable cause).

It is by this reasoning that humankind has tried to answer the question of purpose since the beginning of our race. We have tried to answer the question through the pursuit of the divine, sophistication of our knowledge, and relating to each other. It would seem that all three aspects are noble causes in the face of our existence, even more so in the absence of death. Though I seem to be suggesting that death is a trump to the nobility of those three things, I am saying that it makes the implications of our method of pursuit all the more profound.
After all.. The poor look to the rich with contempt and envy, the rich look down on the poor with insecurity and rejection yet the two groups usually don't know how similar they are in mentality let alone capacity.

So what would it mean if we lived life over the Sun?

The metaphor is reflective of the duality of the human nature.
Humans were never meant to lead a life of self-fulfillment. No human has jumped the gap of ignorance by seeking a satisfying life and no culture has impacted the world without doing something for the good of mankind, be it a negative pursuit of propaganda or a sincerely positive pursuit of well-being.
The fact of the matter is that humankind has advanced due to the desire to make things better for the whole, utilizing every bit of what is endowed with to get somewhere. The crux is that the pursuit of well-being goes against the instincts of the physical body, it is the main reason why Humans have a duality to their nature that can't be escaped.
The naturalists who pervert knowledge to support their godless existence are the greatest example I can ever provide. They believe in moral goodness without a foundation, subjective perception rules more than general absolutes. The base of reasoning is the self because it is through their personal representation (or expression) of experiences instead of transcending reasoning. Let's be clear that there is a difference between an evolutionist and a naturalist, just as much as there is a difference between a deists and the religious.
I am not arguing the character of the supernatural or trying to disenfranchise anyone who has a particular belief in something, because that is just a matter of semantics in this case. What should be known is that true naturalists can't and wont jump into the exploration of the duality of human existence without contradicting their world view, something that doesn't need modern science to explain a lick of.. Philosophers and Spiritualists have been diving into this facet of academia for thousands of years and they have come to some very interesting conclusions that science can't refute.

If all the great prophets of antiquity and all the great philosophers of the modern times are saying the same thing about the point of life.. At what point does an individual question the words of the wise as being more than personal interpretations? Even the greatest minds of natural science have given credit to the absolutely profound nature of energy, time, space, and consciousness. How many metaphors do you need of one idea just to believe the speaker has an understanding of a situation? I certainly hope there isn't a requirement of professional expertise or some sense of accreditation by a 'trusted' source just to hear truth when it is presented.

If the homeless man who received the seventeen cents from the rich man in a Mercedes can say thank you and smile, believing in his heart that the point of life comes down to being thankful for the little bit and keeping hope alive that there is some good in people regardless of their circumstances... Isn't that a revelation to the point of life?
I won't explain what that point is. Sometimes you have to read between the lines to get the message.

What Will You Render?

What is the first thing that you think of when you hear the word "render"?
Do you think about 3D graphics being produced on a computer? Do you think of a calculator processing numbers? Do you think of a translator taking a foreign language by ear and speaking it into your native tongue? Do you think of handing something over to someone else?

Of all those different things, I am talking about the last.
So when I ask the question, "What will you render?" I am getting to a very specific point.
I don't care if you put it into some particular set of terms that you can easily relate to, only because the point isn't lost by doing so. The point is about what you are willing to give up and also why you are willing.

To some people the art of giving is a matter of willful surrender to rendering unconditionally and not only to those you feel a connection with. To others it is a duty and maybe an expression that should be seen in society as a whole instead of just the individuals. Then there are people who are just flat out against it for various reasons, the most common being that they don't like being taken advantage of.
I fall somewhere in the middle.. I feel it is important to render my time and affection to people who love me and I also feel it is important to render my excess to those in need. I am very against being taken advantage of, so I render rejection to those who show in inability to be good stewards with the resources I hand over or the time I can't get back.
I'm also on the fence as to if my mannerism is appropriate or not.. However, it doesn't mean I can't ask my question without suggesting hypocrisy.

One of the most awesome points to life that I can't escape the thought of is how an individual is given most of everything they have or acquire. To some degree there is an accountability of their own efforts being the result of what they obtain, but it is foolish to say they didn't do it without help of some kind.. Be it the energy they use to do labor, the intelligence they utilize to discover something, or the influence to motivate them to do something in return (whatever it may be, loving or hateful or something different). In a cruel sense of what reality proves, we can perpetuate something in some form of another, but we can't lay claim to be the absolute originator of what we perpetuate.
I have a hard time with it when it comes to my artistic sense of creativity, because I know nothing is truly original other than my way of combining elements that have always existed. We can thank the natural world for that paradox. I suppose to have absolute originality would mean to touch on the more definite attribute of the divine.

Despite not having the ability to be completely original, we can still show immense uniqueness and sincerity through what we render through action. One of the more powerful things about human influence is within the psychology of judgment. We judge the sincerity of affection based on action and we judge the severity of negativity by personal feeling. The two are somewhat synonymous in the realm of our psychology even though the responses greatly differ when considering emotions.
It would be more of a surprise to an individual to be hated for an act of sincere kindness than for murderous intent. Just as it would be more of a surprise for a society to welcome a painfully slow destruction than enlightening sophistication. Yet we all know of those few individuals who defy logic in such a way that we wonder if their intent can only be defined as insanely malicious. After all.. How often do we reject a gift that we know is good and don't regret it if we didn't know what it was about at the time of rejection? Isn't it that basic understanding that helps separate the crazy people from the reasonable?

No need to get upset about what may seem like my suggesting there is etiquette to how anything is rendered, if anything at all. I think it is a personal choice that make all the difference in the world to cause and effect. I'll keep away from the idea of karma, only because I think that is a state of being that's based on how the world and people respond to your behavior. I certainly don't want to give weight to the attitude of the self-righteous philanthropist and I don't want to demean the silent guardians who wait for a need to arise and a fight to bring out the underdog.
However you look at it isn't the point.. It's just that you look at it at all.

For me, I will render my skills and excess to anyone who is willing to receive with good intent.
I refuse to render my treasure to savages who can't appreciate it, let alone make it more valuable and then pass it on in a similar manner.
That's just me, it's not a way of life I'm suggesting is or should be the norm.

4D Thinking

There is a lot of controversy concerning the extent of the Human experience. This can be a matter of what we are capable of perceiving, or it could be a matter of social politics. In most cases it does come down to what any one individual is subjected to by virtue of their environment or by virtue of their physical capacity.
However, it's not often that people will discuss their experiences that can't be explained by conventional Science.
I'm speaking about that which isn't limited to the physical plane of existence.

The people who believe that there is more than just a metaphysical realm of existence, that it is intrinsically linked to the physical and is even the home of entities that have an important role in historical truths, they are usually referred to as 'Dualists'. However, the term can be confusing, so let's define it based on the myriad of acceptable terms first:

• an adherent of dualism
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=dualist


• (dualism) the doctrine that reality consists of two basic opposing elements, often taken to be mind and matter (or mind and body), or good and evil
http://wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=dualism


• Dualism denotes a state of two parts. The word's origin is the Latin duo, "two". The term 'dualism' was originally coined to denote co-eternal binary opposition, a meaning that is preserved in metaphysical and philosophical duality discourse but has been diluted in general or common usages.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualist


• (Dualism (law)) Dualism is a legal concept which contends that national law and international law are two separate and distinct areas of law. It can be contrasted with the legal theory of monism which contends the opposite. ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_(law)


• (Dualism (philosophy)) In philosophy of mind, dualism is a set of views about the relationship between mind and matter, which begins with the claim that mental phenomena are, in some respects, non-physical.Hart, W.D. (1996) "Dualism", in A Companion to the Philosophy of Mind, ed. ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_(philosophy)


• (Dualism (politics)) In (Dutch) politics the term Dualism is used to refer to the separation of powers between the Dutch cabinet and parliament. In this respect, the way the Dutch cabinets function is somewhere in between the USA and UK systems of government. ...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dualism_(politics)


• Any person who supports dualism, the belief in absolute good and absolute evil; Any person who believes in or argues for the duality of something; Of or supporting dualism
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dualist


• (dualism) Duality; the condition of being double; The view that the world consists of, or is explicable in terms of, two fundamental principles, such as mind and matter or good and evil; The belief that the world is ruled by a pair of antagonistic forces, such as good and evil; the belief that ...
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/dualism


• (dualism) Any philosophical theory holding that the universe consists of, or can only be explained by, two independent and separate forces, such as matter and spirit, the forces of good and evil, or the supernatural and natural. See also mind-body problem.
http://mb-soft.com/believe/txo/philterm.htm


• (Dualism) The view that there are two different kinds of stuff, usually mind and matter.
http://ethicalrealism.wordpress.com/philosophy-dictionary-glossary/


• (Dualism) The view that the mind and the body are separate or separable subjects of study or experience.
http://faculty.tcc.fl.edu/hss/mcguffr/2012glos.htm


• (Dualism) Mental separation from the universe and seeing oneself as different.  Perception of the absence of love is often part of dualism.  Dualism can also mean the belief that the brain and the mind are ontologically separate things.
http://www.spiritsvoice.net/?page=Spiritual_Terms

There are a whole lot more entries that we can get into, but most of the others are just explanations of the same thing done by different people. For the interest of what I'm getting at, I included the definitions that are pertinent to my point. Especially the one that is highlighted in red.
The reason why the highlighted definition is of the highest priority is because many people are adverse to the idea that there is another force to nature that is not of the same operating principles of physics let alone testable through the Scientific method. It is by virtue of the inability to find a consistent set of parallels to test the 'supernatural' that most people discount it as real or even possible.

I do not discount the deductions of anyone who is against the idea that a Spiritual plane of existence lays parallel to the physical. What I do discount is that the lack of evidence is somehow evidence of a lack of existence. To me, that's an intentional projection of denial that there are many people who have claimed to crossed the veil that separates the two planes, people who's lives were profoundly changed by the experience. I am not talking about people who claim there is an Astral plane, therefore the change in their life is a matter of worldviews. I am talking about people who once were abhorrently opposed to the idea of any other plane of existence, supernatural entities included, then were somehow changed into dedicated believers.

I am a believer of multidimensional physical existence. Or rather.. A multiverse.
I do not believe in the theory that there are multiple Universes outside of our Universe that are all contained and possibly explained like bubbles floating around an even greater expanse. I believe in the idea of the 5th dimension and the multiverse existing as a matter of split choices, ours being the 'static' and prime Universe that is central, the original if you must.
To me, it further proves the infinite power, wisdom, understanding, and sovereignty of divinity; it does nothing to harm my faith of a Triune God, it only serves to make sense of the limitlessness of the concept of whatever can be infinite.
Despite this, I do not consider the multiverse to be relevant to my Dualist ideology. No, in fact I look at the supernatural and the Spiritual plane of existence as something else entirely. Which is where my point comes to it's head.

Often we humans disregard the idea that we exist in more dimensions than just 3. We are quick to look at our physical essence as the 'explanation' of our existence instead of just the vehicle for perception of the physical as well as functioning within the limits of physics. It's this kind of thinking that limits humanity as a whole from understanding the deeper facets of the capacity of the physical mind let alone what can't be explained with conventional science.
Even if you can't accept the idea that there is a spiritual plane, you can't discount the occurrence of events that happen in an individual's life that seem to be purely psychosomatic. Especially when they are afflicted with some life-threatening disease and are able to overcome it with only the power of their thinking, whereas all other physical treatment fails. You can't discredit the individuals who have out-of-body experiences near death and tell of a world that is consistent with others who have experienced the same thing. For certain, it is absolute folly to try to discredit the awesome power of a psychic that is accountable to their own method and proves to not be a fraud.
This may not be proof of the spiritual plane, but there doesn't seem to be any other way to accurately ascertain a definition through conventional thinking. I think that is quite fitting, since conventional thinking was composed by the physical plane. Just like conventional physics can't explain Quantum Phenomenon, even though the two don't conflict.

Awaken to possibilities, 3D thinking is dying. The Modernist lost to Post Modernism, and now the Post Modernist is losing to the Enlightened Spiritualists.
Truth is not subjective, Science is not king of reliability, and being against Dualism is showing to have a detrimental effect on the individual and society.
I'm interested to see if the tide changes in my lifetime, because it would seem that 5th Dimensional Acensionists think the powers of darkness want us to remain as Post Modernists to further the agenda of material bondage.