The Standard Dualistic Model of Reality
Elsewhere on this site I stated that an explanation of the SDM wouldn’t be worth the electrons it took to bring it up on your screen. Well, I’ve done some re-considering, after a friend told me that he didn’t understand exactly what dualism is. So here is a complete break-down, which can help us to understand just why we do what we do in the world, and why the world does what it does.
Dualism
At its most basic, dualism is simply the act of ‘dividing’ the world. In the beginning of our lives, we see the world as an organic whole. Via language and learning, we come to see the world as divided into numerous parts. Because we learn when we’re so young, we also forget that we divided the world up in the first place. Instead, we believe that the world is actually composed of separate units!
If we didn’t forget, everything would be fine, but by the time we’re ten years old or so, we believe so fervently in our divisions that some of us would eventually die or kill for them.
Our problem, then, becomes finding a method to organize all the different parts. If there are different parts, you can probably see that we need to have relationships between those parts. If the parts like to get together, party, and drink margaritas, life will be pretty fun. But if the parts do battle with each other, then our lives will be miserable.
Every model of reality is simply a method of relating the parts to each other. Whether we live by the Standard Dualistic Model, the Intention-Manifestation Model, Steve Pavlina’s Subjective Reality Model, or something else, we’re simply finding different methods to put the parts into relationships with each other.
Some models of reality do a pretty good job of setting those parts up into friendly relationships.
Why, then, have most of us chosen the model with the absolutely lousiest methods of all?
The Standard Dualistic Model
Yep. The rotten tomato. And the very model most of us use. Take a look and see if it corresponds to your own model. There’s nothing to be ashamed of if you do use this model. Most of us do, and many of those who think they don’t are fooling themselves. Just take an honest look at it, and if it makes sense, you’ll be better able to pay attention to the way your mind works. This will be your best tool when you decide to change models (or go with no models at all – better known as Awakening or Enlightenment).
When it comes to relationships between the ‘objects’ of the world, the SDM generally uses conflict as a guideline. In the SDM, all the world’s objects are ephemeral – they last for a certain duration, and during that time they suffer steady deterioration. Things wear down and wear out, and in the end, they die or fall away into dust.
To better understand this model, let’s take a look at the three main tenets of its dogma:
- Local Effects
- Intentional Effort
- World Happens To Us
See if these things make sense. You’ll probably find that each of these describes a basic truth about the world – a sure sign that you’re adhering to this model with full devotion.
Local Effects – In the SDM, things only affect other things ‘locally’. In other words, if I’m going to eat a jicama, I have to go over, grab it, and put it in my mouth. If I am going to help a friend, I have to send them money or go and talk to them. I’m not going to accomplish anything in life if I don’t go out and do something! Things don’t just happen by themselves.
To do things effectively, we must physically interact with other objects.
In some cases, people will believe that they can affect things non-locally. For instance, I might believe that I can help a friend heal from cancer if I pray for them, even if I’m not in the same room. If you look carefully, however, this is just a more subtle version of the ‘local effect’ concept. Basically, at some level I’m positing an object-affects-object relationship. The local effect belief quickly leads us to:
Intentional Effort – Because things can only affect other things via some connection, and since I feel myself to be a conscious being, it makes sense that to change the connection between objects I need to apply intention. In other words, if I want to heal my friend, I have to intend to heal them. That intention is the impetus to create directed effort. In this case, I might consult a physician, or an alternative healer. Or I might pray for my friend each night. Whatever I’m doing, I’m doing it with intention.
In general, the more effort I apply to something, the more effectively it will get done. If I try hard, I’ll likely be successful. If I don’t, I will probably fail.
This leads to:
World Happens To Us – We realize that in the big picture, we’re pretty little. Insignificant, really. In order to make any changes in our lives, we have to apply effort. To make a change in the world, we have to apply great effort!
By this way of thinking, most real changes are out of our range of possibilities. To be truly wealthy, or truly happy, or to be famous, or to lounge around all day eating chocolate – these wonderful things are beyond our reach. Many of us want these things, and apply great effort to gain them, but most of us will fail, no matter how hard we try.
In fact, because we are so small and the world is so big, we’re pretty powerless against the world. Here’s the important part: The World Happens To Us. The best we can do is to carve out a place for ourselves amongst the numerous forces acting for and against us.
By the SDM, we are temporary, rather powerless things, shining momentarily in the endless timeline of history. From the time we are born, the world places great obstacles and dangers before us – disease, aging, financial concerns, our genetics, and all the ‘ups and downs’ we attribute to good luck or bad luck.
Some of us will get lucky, but most of us will have to fight hard to make a place for ourselves. Indeed, almost all of our life energies will go toward making a career, earning money, and establishing functional relationships. If we just decided to kick back for a day or a week or a month, our lives would suffer and fall apart, because we need to apply constant upkeep and effort to keep our lives in order.
How Silly Is This?
These are the most personal and recognizable aspects of the SDM. It is built on other dogma, such as linear time, but to keep this at least a little concise, I’ll stop here.
Does this description make sense? For most of us, this is a pretty accurate description of how we live our lives. It is also a model that creates stress and frustration. That’s just the way it’s built.
Living by this model is completely optional.
Let me say that one more time:
Living by this model is completely optional.
I don’t know where the SDM came from, but one could imagine it came to its full manifestation during the Industrial Revolution, when such a mindset worked perfectly to keep a lot of people working in factories. Think about it. We begin in elementary school, teaching children that success means coming to ‘work’ early in the morning, following instructions all day long, and doing tasks in an orderly fashion. The child that decides she’d rather draw pictures all over her spelling assignment than spell the words? Well, she is ‘punished’ by being given a failing grade.
As we go through school, we have this ingrained in us. For twelve years. Few can escape the idea that success means following the example we learned at school – following orders given by a boss (teacher), and working hard within the boss’s standards to meet the boss’s expectations.
Most of us, then, will create a life for ourselves where we follow this example. Steve Pavlina gives some awesome reasons why we shouldn’t follow the usual route– read about them here. (Don’t read this unless you’re ready to face up to some of your own true feelings about work. Seriously. He’s not coddling egos in this article.) Quite often it’s only those people who decide they want to do things in new, creative ways, breaking out of the teachings they received at school (and elsewhere), who create ‘dream jobs’ for themselves.
Overall, the SDM is a recipe for living a life of endless toil and struggle. And then, as a reward, you get old and decrepit, and then you die. Who would choose a model like this?
Luckily, it’s easy to switch. Although my real advice is to get rid of models altogether, it’s sometimes easier to start with a switch. The Intention-Manifestation Model is the best I’ve found so far.
Explore posts in the same categories: Understanding Dualism
March 21st, 2008 at 10:59 am
I like your article.
But I wonder whether a baby is natural-born dualist or they natural-born enlightment and become dualist after learn a language.
August 25th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
Again, thank you Kenton. I often find with your posts, that you explain with great insight and clarity, subjects which I’ve explored with less insight and clarity myself. It is so familiar, yet so fresh, and it feels lovely! Among other things, I find that this article has provided me with a few great tools. For instance, I’ve previously had difficulties in relating to (clearly, the need to find an appropriate relation to an idea is born of a model-bound mind..
) the Intention-Manifestation Model, or what I’ve only known as the set of ideas sold in ‘The Secret’. When I first encountered it, I saw it as blasphemy; deep, spiritual truths as seen by - and therefore contaminated and diminished - by the ego. Eventually, I came to accept that my rejection was born of an attachment to the ‘deeper understanding’ I perceived myself having on the subject.
I guess what seems to be a common factor with these models, and perhaps models in general, is that they are (if they are well constructed) ’sort of right’, yet completely miss the target. No matter how finely tuned, accurate and ingenious a model is, it will always be light years from bull’s eye as long as it make any claims whatsoever to be the full monthy. If it on the other hand, doesn’t hold any pretensions of conveying some sort of truth, but rather is pointing toward something beyond itself, then it’s sort of blurring the lines of what ideas are capable of.
I digress. Seeing the ’secret’ as an alternative but yet dualistic model works great for me, just as so many other tools you provide.
By the way, have you ever been dreamt of creating a non-dual model? I certainly have! I do believe, in the end, this is the sort of dreams and wishes one could attribute to the ‘enlightened ego’; conceptualizing non-conceptualizing is still conceptualizing..
I guess I do, to some extent, work on a non-dual model, mainly because I think it’s fun, and because it’s really handy when speaking to people about non-dual stuff. It’s a real act of balance not to fall into the dual way of thinking, believing in one’s so-called non-dual ideas.
Time to get back to this play called ‘work’
Love,
Magnus