Post 27 – The Structure of Being on the Illusion of Dualism

Introduction

The Structure of Being perspective challenges a series of dualisms that are often taken for granted. By questioning the very idea of becoming—that things emerge, change, and vanish—this view exposes a fundamental mistake in our understanding of time and existence. This mistaken view gives rise to several apparent dualisms:

• The empirical versus transcendental self
• The isolated versus saving earth
• The finite versus infinite appearing
• The tension between free will and determinism (better understood here as the contrast between apparent contingent choice and destiny)

Moreover, these themes resonate with alternative terminologies found throughout the history of philosophy and religion. For example, the contrast between the temporal and the eternal, the relative and the absolute, the worldly and the divine, and between contingency and necessity—all capture the same underlying tension between appearances and an unchanging, eternal order.

In what follows, we explore each of these contrasts, show how they interrelate within the Structure of Being, and highlight the resonance of these ideas in alternative terminologies.

The Eternal Nature of Being

At the heart of the Structure of Being approach is the rejection of “becoming” as a genuine feature of reality. Drawing on ancient thought—most notably the idea that what is, is—this perspective maintains that everything that exists is eternally identical to itself. In this view, the notion that things come into being and then pass away is not an objective fact but a misinterpretation of reality. If change is only an appearance within the eternal, then distinctions based on temporal evolution are ultimately mistaken. In this sense, the Structure of Being speaks of an eternal reality rather than a merely temporal one.

Empirical versus Transcendental Self

• Empirical Self:
  In everyday life, the self appears as a dynamic, ever-changing entity—a sequence of memories, moods, and physical states experienced in time.
• Transcendental Self:
  Many philosophical and mystical traditions posit a deeper, timeless self—a core that remains unaltered by the flux of daily experience.

According to the Structure of Being, the need to distinguish between an empirical, temporal self and a transcendental, unchanging self arises from a mistaken understanding of time. If being is eternal, then the self does not truly “become” or “cease to be.” The labels “empirical” and “transcendental” reflect different ways of interpreting the eternal self’s appearances rather than a true division between two kinds of self. This insight echoes the contrast between relative vs. absolute in traditions such as Advaita Vedanta.

Isolated versus Saving Earth

• Isolated Earth:
  One perspective treats the earth as a self-contained, transient entity—a realm subject to decay and dissolution. This view emphasizes the earth’s isolation within a temporal process of becoming and passing away.
• Saving (or Salvific) Earth:
  Another perspective imbues the earth with a redemptive or preserving quality, suggesting that it provides eternal stabilization or salvation amid the forces of decay.

Within the Structure of Being, this dichotomy is an interpretative error. The earth, like all things, does not partake in a temporal cycle of coming into being and ceasing to be. Whether one speaks of isolation or salvation, the underlying reality is the same: an unchanging, eternal order. This idea resonates with religious formulations that contrast a fallen, worldly creation with a redeemed, divine order—in other words, the difference between the worldly vs. divine.

Finite versus Infinite Appearing

• Finite Appearing:
  Our everyday experience presents the world as a collection of discrete, limited phenomena. Things appear to have beginnings, developments, and endings.
• Infinite Appearing:
  Conversely, there is a recurring intuition—often expressed in mystical or religious language—that points to an infinite or unbounded aspect of reality. Terms such as “the Absolute” or “the Infinite” denote that which lies beyond the confines of time and space.

The Structure of Being affirms that the finite and the infinite are not two separate realms but rather two interpretations of the same eternal Being. The appearance of finitude arises from our mistaken belief in becoming, while the recognition of the infinite corresponds to an understanding of what truly is—unchanging and eternal. However, appearances themselves are not mere distortions; they are real but must be understood as eternal manifestations within Being. This insight mirrors the contrast of temporal vs. eternal that appears in both Western and Eastern thought.

Free Will versus Determinism: Apparent Contingent Choice vs. Destiny

In common discourse, free will and determinism are treated as opposing conceptions of human agency:

• Free Will:
  Often understood as the capacity to make self-initiated, undetermined choices.
• Determinism:
  The notion that every event, including human actions, follows necessarily from prior causes—a kind of unfolding destiny.

Within the Structure of Being, this opposition is yet another instance of false dualism. If all beings are eternal and unchanging in their essence, then the idea of free will—as the ability to break away from an underlying, necessary order—is an error. Rather than a genuine conflict between free will and determinism, it is more accurate to speak of the contrast between apparent contingent choice (how decisions seem to be made in time) and destiny (the eternal order within which these choices are embedded). However, destiny is not mechanistic determinism; it is the necessary structure of Being itself, which includes the necessity of all things and their eternal appearing.

In many religious contexts, similar debates occur—for instance, between divine foreknowledge and human freedom—where human actions are seen as both free and yet integrated within a divinely ordained order. The Structure of Being perspective dissolves this conflict by challenging the very assumption that change, and thus genuine contingency, exists in the first place.

Conclusion

The Structure of Being perspective challenges conventional dualisms—from the empirical versus transcendental self, through the isolated versus saving earth and the finite versus infinite appearing, to the supposed conflict between free will and determinism. By revealing that these dualisms stem from a mistaken interpretation of temporal change, this approach shows that what appear to be opposing realms or concepts are, in fact, different expressions of the same eternal order.

What appears as fragmentation and alienation—whether in human identity, cosmic order, or the nature of existence—arises from the illusion of becoming. However, this apparent alienation is itself destined to dissolve, revealing the fundamental unity of Being. The divisions we perceive in reality—be they between the contingent and the destined, the finite and the infinite—dissolve once we recognize that being is fundamentally eternal and unchanging. This perspective not only challenges conventional views of human agency and cosmic order but also bridges the gap between secular and sacred understandings of existence.