[Elspeth Crawford]

It seems impossible to reply without getting in to long answers.

I wrote a post here https://transitionalspace.wordpress.com/2021/05/07/to-value-uncertainty-in-being/ which is long, and contains some of my thinking about that contronym word “duality”. When you say non-duality it appears to mean a logical opposite to Descartes type of duality, while the contronym use of “duality” refers to an entity that contains two qualities. This has nothing to do with separation and split. This thinking follows David Bohm and his concept of implicate order – and Bohm’s dialogues seem to speak to Jungians like Geigerich who bring a “universal soul” forever dynamically coming into BEING [like your being?] in which our wee individual souls – or the elephant’s soul or that of the wasp all play a part. Such thoughts do change the way I am and the ways I interact – in living being.

Verbal doesn’t work, unless the person hearing already knows something of the grace and gratitude of this experience. Then we all try so hard to pass it on!

from the post referred to above:

What if we truly could feel ourselves as nodes that have emerged in the field of being, consciously aware of the perspective we choose to see, consciously aware that making the choice limits us?

Why limits? Following the quantum uncertainty principle: a
node that has emerged in the field of being is either aware of itself
and its position, but cannot at the same time be aware of its direction
for action. The nature of the observation affects that which is
observed.

It seems to me that many dislike the thought of being limited and veer away from this soul’s truth.