This document discusses different approaches to reality from both dualistic and nondual perspectives. It provides examples of how these perspectives can be applied to relationships with God, spiritual and moral development, political systems, and debates like abortion. The key points are: 1) A dualistic approach sees things in terms of problems to be solved, while a nondual approach emphasizes intimacy, unity, and compassion. 2) Both approaches are needed and neither should be overemphasized. Dualistic thinking is important but can miss deeper spiritual insights, while nondual views must accommodate human limitations. 3) Applying these perspectives can provide new ways of understanding issues like politics, where nondual thinking sees shared goals and

1. Johnboy on December 21, 2011 at 11:40 pm said:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
For Hugh (and likely a few others)
RE: The optimal nondual (contemplative) approach to reality is
multifaceted in that it aspires to 1) intersubjective intimacy
via our unitive strivings whereby different subjects/persons
celebrate coming together 2) intraobjective identity via our
realization of unitary being whereby all realities present as
somehow intricately interconnected as objects/functions within
a divine matrix 3) intrasubjective integrity via each
subject/person’s growth in human authenticity or true-self
realization and 4) interobjective indeterminacy whereby
created and Uncreated subjects/persons and objects/functions
present as also somehow distinct. The nondual approach is
profoundly relational as it seamlessly, hence optimally,
realizes the truth, beauty and goodness that ensues from these
different eternal relationships.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
When I say nondual or contemplative, I am talking about the
way I interact with my granddaughter when she knocks on my
door. My heart leaps and we delight in each other’s presence.
When I say dualistic, I think of doing my taxes.
Talking about a putative ultimate reality, God for most of us,
a nondual intersubjective intimacy would be like that between
spouses, parent and child, or, like in my example, grandparent
and grandchild. That’s one way aspire to interact with God in
the West. If, however, we interact with God like He’s a
policeman or judge, that would be dualistic in a moral
problem-solving sense. St. Bernard spoke of a “love of God for
sake of self.” In catechism we learned imperfect contrition or
sorrow for the consequences our sins have on us. CS Lewis
spoke of eros or the “what’s in it for me” dynamic of
relationships. All of those would be examples of practical
dualistic problem-solving. Those who spend a lot of time on
metaphysical proofs and the apologetics of natural theology in
philosophy internet forums are engaging God in a rational
dualistic problem-solving. This is another way we interact
with God in the West, which is okay but we miss the deeper
invitation to intimacy if we don’t go beyond it to the
nondual.
A nondual intraobjective integrity refers primarily to
Enlightenment experiences of the East, where folks
experientially realize, beyond all concepts, the grand unity
of all reality, how everything is related to everything else.
This is not a metaphysical insight such that one would come
away a pantheist (God is merely the whole that is greater than
the sum of His parts) or materialist monist (the philosophical
naturalism of an atheist). Rather, it is a profound
existential realization of our radical solidarity with all
being and the experience blossoms into a profound compassion,
sometimes for all sentient beings. The Western experience of
love moves us to compassion, also, but more so from having
experienced being so well loved. This does have practical
1

2. metaphysical implications that some Christians have resolved
as a pan-en-theism, which more so suggests God indwelling in
all rather than be comprised of all (pan-theism). The
Enlightenment experience is nondual. There is no problemsolving going on, just an ineffable … well, we cannot tell
untellable stories. Elaborating a panentheist approach on
paper is a rational dualistic problem-solving, which is great
but not the same as an existential realization.
Intrasubjective integrity speaks to our growth within each of
us as subject. Think of Kohlberg’s stages of moral
development; Fowler’s stages of faith development; Piaget’s
stages of cognitive developmet; or Lonergan’s conversions –
intellectual, affective, moral, sociopolitical and religious.
Religious conversion is a two-step dance. Having been loved
unqualifiedly, we start loving, more & more through time, in
the same way, gifting others in return by cooperating with
that gift of divine love, which is nothing less than the
activity (mission) of the Holy Spirit. The more we cooperate
with that gift, which was given freely, apart from anything we
have ever known (or been educated to) or ever done (whether an
ascetical practice or moral deed), the stronger our own
unqualified loving & the more evident our cooperation with the
Holy Spirit vis a vis beatitudes, corporal & spiritual works
of mercy, charismatic gifts, gifts of the Spirit, fruits of
the Spirit, theological & cardinal virtues. Our
intrasubjective growth has dualistic and nondual moments,
also. Our intellectual, moral, social and political growth is
primarily dualistic problem-solving (that we would not want to
proceed without!). Our affective (emotional) and religious
development has both but realize their unitive summit in the
nondual, when our other neediness is quieted.
Interobjective indeterminacy speaks to the unspeakable. It is
really just a placeholder for the possibility of realities
that are wholly beyond us, like some aspects of God.
We also interact with fellow creatures in the above-listed
ways but that takes us into arcane metaphysics with all sorts
of root metaphors like substance, process, experience and so
on.
**************************************************************
*****************************
RE: The dualistic (empirical, logical, aesthetical, practical
& moral) approaches to reality represent our imbibing of
eternity from a temporal eyedropper that our finite existence
might not be drowned in God’s ocean of truth, beauty and
goodness, a heavenly tsunami that no earthly finite reality
could withstand or contain! Our dualistic approach does not
represent a theoretical capitulation or departure from our
nondual aspirations, only a compassionate and practical
accommodation of our radical finitude, while we take the
transformative journey.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The above statement is a recognition that our dualistic
approach is good and necessary, just not sufficient to realize
the value offered us in the Good News — that God wants an
intimate relationship with us via a more nondual engagement —
2

3. as St. Bernard would say, a love of God for sake of God. Our
dualistic approach is, however, both necessary and sufficient
to nevertheless live a life of abundance under, for example,
the Old Covenant because all God really expects of us is an
enlightened self-interest. Like any good parent, who wants
what is best for a child and will settle for them being safe,
healthy, happy and moral even if they do not fully reciprocate
our deep, deep love of them – God’s cool with our erotic love
of Him (what’s in it for us) and imperfect contrition. The
nondual and dualistic are not over-against is what I was
trying to say. The dualistic is an invitation to a wedding
shower; the nondual is an invitation to the bridal chamber.
**************************************************************
******************
RE: Dysfunctional religion presents in many ways, primarily
from an overemphasis of the dualistic and underemphasis of the
nondual. For example, on the journey to intrasubjective
integrity, we recognize it as our clinging to the false-self.
In moral theology, some have overemphasized the procreative
and under-emphasized the unitive dimension of conjugal love.
In spiritual theology, some have overemphasized the moral and
ascetical at the expense of the mystical and contemplative.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
For those familiar with the teachings of Merton on false self
and true self, especially as amplified by Fr. Richard, true
self realization is the paragon of the nondual approach vis a
vis intra-subjective (within oneself) integrity or human
authenticity. For those who grew up Roman Catholic, the birth
control fiasco came from an overemphasis on the biologistic
and physicalistic and rationalistic problem-solving approach
and an underemphasis on the nondual unitive value of conjugal
love. In homiletics, an overemphasis on fire and brimstone,
church disciplines and other matters is primarily dualistic,
true-enough, perhaps, but missing the deeper invitation to
contemplative prayer.
**************************************************************
************************
RE: How does all of this apply to the political life? Most
political dysfunction is rooted in the either-or/all or
nothing thinking of our dualistic approach. Further, this
insidious dualism gets way overemphasized at the expense of
our nondual vision of temporal reality. If we look through a
Lukan prism, we might see a fivefold Christology, which
recognizes that Christ came to orient, sanctify, empower, heal
and save us. As Luke’s narrative continues in Acts, we see the
Spirit continuing this divine work. A nondual approach
inspired, indeed inspirited, by a pneumatological (Spiritrelated) imagination sees the Holy Spirit infusing each realm
of our temporal reality, always and everywhere, historically
orienting humankind, culturally sanctifying us, socially
empowering us, economically healing us and politically saving
us.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
What I really wish to convey here is that the major categories
of our explicit faith include 1) eschatology (where are we
3

4. headed? orienting us), 2) theology (to whom are we dedicated?
sanctifying us), 3) ecclesiology (how are we a people?
empowering us), 4) sacramentology (how are we sustained &
nourished? healing us) and 5) soteriology (what’s wrong and
what can we do about it? saving us). EVEN in our otherwise
secular culture, EVEN among nonbelievers, the SPIRIT is the
One coaxing humankind along, always and everywhere, already 1)
orienting us through our shared history 2) sanctifying us
through our cultures 3) empowering us through our social
institutions 4) sustaining and healing us through our
economies 5) saving us and freeing us through our politics!
THERE IS NO COMPARTMENTALIZATION FOR THE HOLY SPIRIT BETWEEN
THE SECULAR AND THE SACRED.
**************************************************************
***********************
RE: This is not to deny that, from time to time, place to
place, people to people and person to person, the Spirit’s
work has been variously amplified or frustrated in matters of
degree; it is to affirm, however, that all good gifts have One
Source, Who has coaxed all of humankind along on the journey!
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Of course, for reasons due to poor formation or even
deformation or developmental inadequacies we encounter
different degrees of manifestation of God-presence as various
people(s) fail or even refuse to cooperate with the Spirit.
Thing is, we must discern when and where it is we see failures
to cooperate but we can never know which failures result from
inabilities (as above-listed) or refusals (sin), because we
are not in a position to judge.
**************************************************************
************************
RE: An overly dualistic approach, again, in an all or
nothing/either-or way, contrastingly, always sees the Spirit –
then but not now, there but not here, in this position but not
that or vice versa. Worse, yet, it will see the Spirit in him
but not her, us but not them, and not as a matter of degree
but to the extent one gets thoroughly demonized and another
absolutely deified! This is at the very root of the extremely
polarizing rhetorical back and forth between our political
parties.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Once we employ a more robustly nondual view of human
realities, we’ll see the Spirit at work even in Republicans
and Democrats.
**************************************************************
***************************
RE: The wisdom of the catholic subsidiarity principle is
rooted in the gift of Third Eye seeing, which affirms our
eternal nondual aspirations and their proleptic realizations
even while compassionately accommodating our temporal
dualistic situations within their historical, cultural,
social, economic and political contexts. It celebrates the
fruits of our prayer that the Kingdom will come, indeed, on
earth as it is in heaven.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
So, when a people’s history is explicitly eschatological
(knowing where we’re headed per the Good News), when a
4

5. people’s culture is explicitly theological (even if
pluralistically so), when a people’s society is explicitly
ecclesiological (church-going), when a people’s economy is
explicitly sacramental and when a people’s politics is
explicitly salvific and liberating, we can rejoice that the
Kingdom which is to come is at least being more fully realized
in part. When it is not explicitly so — but merely historical,
cultural, social, economic and political, we can STILL REJOICE
knowing it is the same Holy Spirit providing all good gifts!
**************************************************************
**************************
RE: There is nothing intrinsically wrong with an approach that
takes from each according to one’s ability and gives to each
according to one’s need; at least, it’s worked in convents,
monasteries and families for millennia! Because of our radical
finitude, however, without theoretically abandoning our
ideals, we compassionately accommodate our radical finitude
and, precisely because we are not angels, we institute
government in the place of anarchy and regulated free markets
in the place of any rigid capitalism or socialistic communism.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
The point is that, like a just war, any government at all is a
necessary evil and so no political philosophies are grounded
in eternal principles and no politics is deserving of
idolization or demonization.
**************************************************************
************************
RE: To the extent the ideals of our nondual, relational
approach are being realized, governmental, regulatory and
socialization processes must recede to optimize that freedom
which best fosters authentic love. However, to the extent they
are frustrated, then coercive government, regulatory and
socialized means must be instituted to maintain order and
advance the common good. The classical liberal or libertarian
impulse (modern conservatism), then, is but a pragmatic
critique of anarchism; it errs (and becomes indistinguishable
from anarchism) when it treats the ideals of limited
government as absolute values and ignores the practical
realities that result from our radical finitude. The modern
liberal or progressive impulse, then, is but a pragmatic
critique of libertarianism; it errs when it treats
governmental, regulatory and socialization processes as the
default bias, when, in fact, limited government, whenever and
wherever practicable, is the proper bias. What both
libertarian and progressive approaches have in common, then,
is that they are grounded in pragmatic critiques and practical
accommodations and not so-called eternal principles; so, all
of the pious talk about so-called consistent principles is
actually misplaced!
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Common sense tells us not to habitually do for anyone what
they can do for themselves. Compassion instructs us to do for
anyone what they cannot do for themselves, best we are able.
While the aims of love and politics may often coincide,
including both Gospel imperatives and injunctives, they
otherwise differ in their means. The Gospel is not coercive or
ever violent. The government is inherently coercive, as a
5

6. necessary evil. To the extent our historical, cultural,
social, economic and political lives are realizing the values
of our otherwise explicitly eschatological, theological,
ecclesiological, sacramental and soteriological lives,
government can and should back off. Otherwise, unfortunately,
we need it to maintain the social order and to establish the
common good. This doesn’t mean we have abandoned the Gospel,
only that we are weak and cannot fully implement it.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
RE: Finally, when it comes to strategic approaches, the
subsidiarity principle sometimes sees the virtue in flipping,
at other times in flopping. It is only in moral approaches
that consistency is fully warranted. But political systems are
already grounded, for the most part, in a broad moral
consensus (e.g Constitution, Declaration of Independence,
Universal Declaration of Human Rights), and political
differences are mostly rooted in practical and strategic
differences toward goals that are otherwise already shared,
like establishing world peace and eliminating poverty. To
always recast our practical and strategic differences in terms
of moral reality is just a sinister way to emotionally charge
(they say energize) a political base. A nondual approach, via
subsidiarity principles and relational ideals, however,
transcends all of these differences and nurtures their
creative tensions with a peace that surpasses all earthly
understanding.
**************************************************************
************************
Here’s a lively example. The abortion debate. Even if everyone
agreed on the metaphysics of ensoulment and the morality of
abortion at every stage of gestation, there could be
legitimate PRACTICAL disagreements on the best way to
eliminate and or reduce the numbers of abortions. For example,
it is a question of jurisprudence not morality on whether or
not any given law is enforceable and whose role should or
should not be criminalized. Has this law worked in South
America or Europe or Kansas? Can it work in California?
Differences in jurisprudence and strategy are not moral
positions. Even if one agreed on jurisprudential issues, there
could still be legitimate differences regarding political
strategies and what would work best. One would never know it,
listening to much of the rhetoric surrounding this moral
reality. We should be able to advance this issue based on
common ground.
6