Why it is super problematic to use non-duality as an answer to the war of ideologies

And why ontological truth and operative reality are not the same thing.

We are living in an ideological war. Whether explicitly or implicitly. It is constant and omnipresent.

Political camps. Spiritual camps. Psychological frameworks. Moral positions. Identity narratives.

Most of them claim the truth. Most claim clarity. Most claim to be “awake” and to see more than everyone else.

And you might rightfully ask at this point:

Who the fuck are you to question what people claim to be true, while offering another perspective at the same time?

My answer is simple:

I don’t claim truth. I develop metaphysical hypotheses as far as my thinking can go, when something keeps refusing to add up. And I point out, systematically, where things are sold as Truth while not being thought through.

When we look for a spiritual answer that could theoretically dissolve all ideological conflict, one candidate always appears:

Non-duality.

No sides. No right or wrong. All perspectives equally valid.

And depending on the level you look from, this is not only understandable, but intellectually honest. It is wise. It is peaceful.

And it is also problematic.

Because while non-duality is often presented as the antidote to ideological warfare, it frequently functions as a bypass, not a resolution.

Here is why.

Ideologies are not just opinions. They are operating systems.

They determine how decisions are made. How resources are distributed. How responsibility is assigned. How harm is justified or excused. How power moves.

When ideologies collide, something real is at stake. Lives. Structures. Meaning. Material consequences.

To respond to that collision with “everything is one” may feel soothing, but it does not address the mechanics of the conflict.

Non-duality dissolves distinction. But conflict arises precisely because distinctions matter.

Who has agency. Who carries responsibility. Who benefits. Who pays the cost.

If you erase all distinctions too early, you do not resolve the war. You remove the tools needed to understand it.

This is where non-duality becomes half-baked.

Not because it is wrong. But because it is incomplete.

Non-duality is an ontological statement, not a psychological one and not a social operating manual.

It describes a mode of perception of reality:

• the dissolution of the subject-object split
• the insight that perceiver and perceived are not fundamentally separate

It does not say: “This is how you should live.”

It says: “This is how reality is structured when separation collapses.”

That distinction matters.

Because non-duality describes a state of being. It does not describe a functioning system.

It can tell you that, at the deepest level, separation is illusory. It cannot tell you how to design a society. How to handle power asymmetries. How to navigate conflicting value systems in real time.

And yet, it is often used as a moral high ground.

“I don’t take sides.”

“I see all perspectives.”

“It is meant to be.”

I have a lot to say about the “it is meant to be”. Not primarily from a moral standpoint, but from a structural one.

A structure either allows a system to flourish or makes it collapse. If a framework systematically removes agency, accountability, and consequence, it is not neutral. It is dysfunctional.

The real issue with non-duality is when it turns into an anti-polarity reflex.

Refusing polarity does not make polarity disappear. It makes it unconscious.

And unconscious polarity is far more dangerous than conscious conflict.

Because then power moves without accountability. Harm happens without being named. Responsibility dissolves into abstraction.

To give a deliberately extreme example:

You could let someone die in front of you, someone you could easily help, and justify it by saying “it is meant to be” in the grand scheme of things.

This is not wisdom. It is abdication.

To come back to the core point:

The war of ideologies is not solved by pretending it does not exist. It is solved by understanding how ideologies function, where they break, and what they fail to account for.

That requires: discernment distinction structure

Not endless relativism.

True resolution does not come from collapsing everything into oneness. It comes from seeing clearly: where a framework works where it fails what it costs and who pays that cost

Only then can something new emerge.

Not a higher ideology. Not another belief system.

But a more precise way of thinking.

Non-duality is true to me. And to many others.

The fallacy is assuming it is meant to operate as a functional model in 3D reality.

And intelligence can feel that.

If you have ever felt that “just transcend it” was not a satisfying answer, that something important was being skipped, that non-duality is deeply right and yet somehow incomplete, you are not missing the point.

You are noticing the gap.

Until next time,

M

PS: If you want to

• name what you feel but can’t articulate
• reconnect to intuitive intelligence without bypassing the mind
• shift out of subtle freeze into aliveness
• think clearly without collapsing into overthinking
• access desire without pressure
• create (manifest) from grounded identity instead of adaptation

Then you’re surely enjoy one of my offers. Check the current one HERE.