There are two types of spirit in this world, negatives and positives. Forget the usual connotation you associate with those words. This is not a measure of judgment, but two opposites on a pole. The negatives are necessarily bad, they are just a complement of nature. The negatives are the ones who stay back, they are the dreamers. They are not active forward. The positives are not necessarily good by nature, they are just a complement of nature. They are the ones that move ahead, they are the doers.They are active forward.
sometimes there are 3
>>865202
This is nuanced on many scales, the inclination in politics of rights to be conservatives. They are the ones who see the world as it is at the moment. They are needed to meet the task in front. The left dream of how the world ahead can be. They are needed to establish the world ahead. However, once that world is established the right is needed to move forward and build the world ahead. Hence the world must move on a pendulum. However the positive right and negative left do not move in the same way. The right moves in a straight line, moving steady and gradually. The left stays in the back and thinks of the world in the far point ahead, and put forth the ideas to form that dot. While the negatives create that dot the positives lead society forward to reach that goal. Positives are active because they must face the world ahead and move. The negatives are passive because they stay back and dream of the point the collective sum of souls want to reach. The positives and negatives are the two parts of every spirit called the Collective Spirit.
The world is therefore both dualistic and one. There are two great creative forces in the world, what many interpret to be gods.
>>865202
Often time spirits are put into roles.Negatives are the cool hues of the universe. The cold temperature, the dark night, the moon, the mother's gentleness. They are submissive, more passive, and bring forth the future. Positives are the warm hues of the universe. The heated temperatures, the bright day,the sun, the father’s guidance. They are dominant, more active, and pull forth to reach that future. The two forces make the sphere of Collective spirit.
>>865202
A spirit is in all living things. A spirit is energy of being. The collective spirit is the sphere of spirits that make up the universe. The collective spirits want to reach the center in the way of positives and negatives described previously. Once they reach that point they create whatever more spirits they can add to the collective spirit. When a spirit dies in the world, it returns to its original shapeless form of a spirit and return to the sphere of collective spirits.
>>865212
The way that is known is not the Eternal way
>>865202
This can be related to the first religion of the indo Europeans, which comprised of a Sky father and earth mother. This belief manifested itself in many ways in different interpretations as ideas spread. The Hellenic religion which arose from those beliefs incorporates these ideas greatly. At the center of the pantheon is Zeus and Hera( although there are other entities which interacted.) Zeus is the sky father, the Positive. Hera is the earthly mother, The Negative
>>865217
>A spirit is in all living things. A spirit is energy of being.
Why has this energy never been detected?
>>865368
0/10
DUDE
>>865307
>Zeus is the sky father, the Positive. Hera is the earthly mother, The Negative
What? Hera is a celestial goddess you retard, Demeter is the PIE Earth Goddess in Greek mythology. Also while it is true that dualism is an incredibly ancient idea, that doesn't make it right. Also also, you don't seem to understand what philosophers OR theologians actually mean by the term "dualism". Or spirit, for that matter.
tl;dr- DEFINE YOUR TERMS
Dualism? It's simple.
The blue represents the Pepsi, and the red represents the Pepsi.
Why does it feel like I'm listening to some 16yo stoner trying to sound deep
>>865399
in early versions of Greek mythology Demeter was the consort to Zeus. However as indo-european dualism formed into polytheism, which every god represents a point between the great negative( earthly mother) and positive ( sky father) became a deity in itself. Demeter came the manifestation of hera as a fertility goddess
>>865202
The cow was a central symbol to indo-Europeans. Why? the Cow seems to be related to the great negative and its connontation; Motherhod. This is reflected in hindu veneration of the cow, Hera's representation as Boopis, or "cow face" , from the egyptian cow-faced goddess hathor-(semitic cultures share many aspects with indo-europeans)
>>865576
>However as indo-european dualism formed into polytheism
This is begging the question. The evidence suggests dualism arose from polytheism, not vice versa.
Also Demeter was in no way a reflex of Hera, and Hera has since the very earliest times always been associated with the sky, she is not an earth goddess. Also again, this is not what dualism means, in theological terms, except possibly to a Taoist.
>>865606
forgive me as the title is misleading. By a case for 'dualism', I mean a case for this particular interpretation of polar spirituality which I can only describe as dualistic
>>865399
Hera as the Olympian feminine principle characterized by her instigatory nature. Hera is often the adversary of the male solar heroes that prevail over the forces of deep matter and chaos. But Hera as the earth means she is the mother of form, birth and death, conditional existence. Her hostile element is presupposed by her status as the great womb and substrate of the Greek reality.
>>865623
Thanks, I mean exactly this ..
>>865644
These are the principles expressed by and through Hera's character. You're too hung up on the lore that accreted around the central figure and what it must inevitably represent by virtue of its qualities, that of the feminine force in an ordered, male cosmos.
>>865686
So you're using your reinterpretation of figures to prop up your personal made-up theology, and when people tell you the actual historical interpretations of those figures you say that can't possibly be right, just look at your personal made up theology?
>>865699
It's more like you're unable to grasp the universal ideas behind particular manifestations
>>865709
OP is off his meds and you are a troll.
>>865716
Nope. God there's some fucking dopes on this shit board
>>865725
t.Khadijah
>>865202
Speak in abstraction, get a shitty trance out of plebs.
Polar is a concept of object attribution. 'Opposite' and 'similar', the same, in that they are attributable concepts one catagorieses another concept of being associated by, or pertaining in its overall grand concept.
when you say abstract shit, like "There are two types of spirit in this world", and then go on to talk ad nausium about abstract qualities of those 'spirits, but never explain wtf you mean by 'spirit', you gain no conceptual ground.
So, without talking baout qualities of 'something', tell me what something is - but not by its attributes. WTF is its purpose? specifically explain how these qualities effect an orange tree, or a rock, or a person (outside a claim of possession).
It actually sound like your not read enough to simply say, there exists 'a priori' truths inherent of a human being in commonality"; or something to that effect. Then gone on to describe how that commonality expresses itself in our human condition. You pretty much talking kant and plato here, while trying to be edgy and neo-gnostic. IN reality, I think this abstract terminology only serves to hypnotise yourself into some ego-worship. where by chance, you in your existential crisis, realized your own current concept of existence and found meaning in such. . . but not enough to subdue the rapaciousness of pride. You're not enlightened, you're not the messiah, nor do you understand any being like such.
IN fact, it's these charlotons who preach in abstraction and assertion, with no degree of accuracy or truth to the spew of nominalizations; these are all finite states of categorical existence for you, that you can talk so exactly about through such abstract inference? There is no cohesion to idea, nor is there much concision in explanation.
2/10. Good effort.
>>865202
>this whole post
This kills the physicist.
Why two and not for example five?
Man, I'm not even a materialist or positivist in any sense of the word, but your post is such 14-year-old pseudo-spiritual gobbledegook that you might as well be trying to sell spirit crystals to uninformed grandmas.
1/10, see me after class.
>>866446
Haha epic
