Hall Of Mirrors Request (Duality vs Non-Duality discussion)

For all things philosophical.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Post Reply
EchoesOfTheHorizon
Posts: 356
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2017 6:08 am

Hall Of Mirrors Request (Duality vs Non-Duality discussion)

Post by EchoesOfTheHorizon »

https://www.facebook.com/Hall-of-Mirror ... 157620098/

A certain someone on this site has asked my to explain what is going on on this Facebook thread philosophically, if it relates to the Indian school of Non-Dualism.

I don't really get how to use Facebook, and sure don't want my account, with only one contact, to become "who I am" on that platform as my general philosophy is completely fuck Facebook, but sure, whatever.
In Hall of Mirrors you'll often see us use the word "experience", instead of the word "awareness". Or you might see us use the word "experience" instead of the word "reality".
We don't do this to reify the idea of "experience". We do it to DE-reify ALL IDEAS - especially "awareness".
We regularly say that the words "awareness", "experience", and "reality" can be used interchangeably.
We do this to emphasise the fact that words like "awareness", "experience", and "reality", are all NOTHING MORE THAN IDEAS about "this that is".
"Awareness", "experience", and "reality", are just ideas that REFER to "This that is".
Notice "this that is", exactly as it is.
Notice that without thought, there would be absolutely no reason to believe that "this that is", could be something appearing in something else (e.g. "experience" or "a world", appearing in "awareness").
Only thought says that "this that is" is made up of one idea that appears in another idea.
Only thought says that some of this is " the underlying reality" of the rest of this.
Only thought says that you are something in which "this" appears, or that you are something that appears in "this".
Only thought says that this is "emptiness", or that it is "fullness".
Only thought says that this is being created by something, or coming out of something.
Only thought says that some of this is inside you and some of it is outside you.
Only thought says that some of this is you, and some of it is not you.
Only thought says that some of this is stuff that is you, and some of it is stuff that "you experience".
Only thought says that you are aware of something other than what you are aware of, or something different to what you're aware of.
Only thought says that you are one amongst many.
Only thought says that you are a person in "this".
Only thought says that people are aware of what they say and do.
Only thought says that you are a thing doing something in "this".
And only thought says that you are the author of thoughts, and that you are the thinker of what they are saying, Regardless of the fact that you are clearly not able to decide which thoughts appear.
If you could, would you really choose to "think" thoughts about unhappiness, or stress, or a lack of peace?
So what does thought know?
Does it REALLY know that "this that is" is something appearing in something else, or as something else?
Does it really know that you are something that is disturbed by anything?
Does it have any idea what you are?
The are in this quote, indeed interating the basic advaitian rejection of ideas, of knowing, and putting emphasis on perception, but in this case it isn't quite yet pure perception as Self/Universe, but still identifying formula, such as experience, as the perceived of That.

I-That-Is in advaita eventually seeks to blend itself into oneness, all three states being the same. Any "this or that" is "you" in this moment.

It is a rejection of time, place, persona, verbalized thinking, reminiscences, pain, pleasure, motivation beyond the immediate now. It isn't even skepticism, even radical skepticism, but rather a mantra to accept and reject simultaneously, in the same way a analogue security camera transmitting to a tv, but not recording does.

99.99% of the background chit chat noise made on this forum, and in the west about Duality vs Non Duality is ignorant and short sighted. I can't claim with certainty that Non-Dualism as a philosophy school started in India, as the pre-Socratic up to Aristotle and Theophrastus seemed aware of aspects at times of various schools of Dualism (Dvaita) and Non-Dualism (Advaita).... but in India, they certainly made it central, and brought it to the fullest level it is possible to express the divide. Just as we talk of Epistemeology and Ontology, as categories of philosophy to pursue and discuss for their own sake (this site is organized on this actually) the discussion in India of Duality and Non-Duality deserves as equally a wide categorization. Most we manage in the west is discussion of Solipsism, which is a class of Non-Duality, but isn't quite fully there, given the vast weaknesses and logical inconsistencies a person of that thought will face. The western Solipsists, simply put, will always been in more doubt about the authenticity of their belief because they lack the millennia old toolkit a non-dualist from India can drawl upon to convince themselves that they are all that there is phenomenally. West produces armatures, and Descartes unfortunately wounded us heavily in declaring his silly Mind-Body split as dualism. Liebniz Universal Monism is often mistaken for Non-Duality as well. Years ago it occurred to me this was a problem in San Francisco when I was sitting in a discussion about Duality and Non Duality in the San Francisco Philosophy Group, when it occurred to me despite even the presence of a Buddhist present in the discussion, nobody knew what the heck the phrases meant beyond Liebniz and Descartes. I had to walk them through it, and they found it utterly alien and bizarre.

The Non-Dualist movement has been growing for some time in the English speaking world. The Urban Guru Cafe on Second Life used to collect bloggers on the subject to do talks to large crowds numbering up to 40-60 people a meeting. The strategies are ludicrous, to convince each person that everyone else is but a figment of their imagination, that the phenomena of visualization is all that is, experienced, and that names, terminology was, meaning, knowing, fades away, isn't part of that experience. It is a favoring of the right hemisphere over the left, in killing language. It is a killing of the modes in the right of differation and judgement, driving towards blind exceptance.

Anyone doing a quick search of Advaita and Dvaita will quickly find out other subgroups exist. My particular branch is Cognitive Dualism, where I merely assert all awareness is dual, even advaitian passive awareness. It doesn't make any grandiose claims of God or Atheism, or presumes a ethics, etc. Just notes awareness can't be without Duality, that mechanisms are responsible for experience/awareness, etc.

The book I'm reading right now is Ratnakirti's Proof of Momentariness by Positive Correlation, I'm copying it word for word in a sketchbook so I can later on break it down further into it's basic essence, and make logical formulas out of it to explain it, in a illustrated manuscript down the road. One thing I noticed in his first argument in rejecting Cause and Effect, and Time.... is that he is using the same damn fucking pot that Dignaga used in his Hetuchakra. Seriously, how many ways can you make the same stupid allegorical pot NOT exist in Paradox or contradiction? I've seen this same Buddhist pot do more magic tricks between these two philosophers than I ever have seen any magician do in a show. The irony of Non-Duality is, it takes a hell of a lot of Dualism to reach a point of concluding Non-Duality is correct. The mind isn't set up to accept the Non-authenticity of instincts, or emotions, of the dynamism of being. So most Non-Dualist schools have a partial approach to it, going like. Nietzscheans with their "Beyond Good and Evil" position on Will to Power is a adoption of medieval Shavist thinking from the region we now call Pakistan, but was then India. Not a lot has been translated in the west, but he had access to Indologists (good friends with one) and brought a lot of concepts over. You'll find Heidegger is often take as a comparative figure in Non-Dual papers, some book size, pitting him off against someone like Dogen or Adi Shankara. I used to get excited when I saw a old book from India in English showing the comparisons and where they diverge years ago, back when it seemed so deep, but now I can't begin to give a fuck. I know enough to just go out and get a sandwich and not worry about people high off big philosophical names trying to figure out how Dasein sits in the whole mess of it all. It doesn't. It is a dead end road, you gotta basically lobotomize yourself to get to a point where the philosophy of Heidegger or eastern Non-Duality works.

Non-Duality isn't like the mediatation of the Jesus Prayer or Mantras of Tibetan Buddhism (well, Tibetan Buddhism does have a Non-Dualism school, they can't escape the debate either) where they keep saying words over and over to gain a psychological effect.... the goal is to vanquish language and verbalized thinking, or the need to orient to things, and just stare blankly out into nothingness. It is the Brahmo (not Brahmin, Brahmo) religion of India. Just waking up on the cusp of the void, staring out, not knowing place, history, your person.... just starring. That is what they want, and in theory at least, once they get there, they don't even want it, or accept it, or think about it. They are a potato. They are the mindless frog of Zen Buddhism. They shut down much of their brain.

It isn't worth therefore pursuing as you asked in the PM, logical fallacies. Logical fallacies for starters are merely pathways through the mind, preferring thinking along one cranial nerve while rejecting another, in order to achieve a desired ends in a debate. In a very narrow debate, debating say, medical techniques involving the spleen and a specific medicine.... rigorous logical fallacies to protect the discussion from inviting concepts like holy water and pixie dust into the discussion is generally good, as far as debating approaching a valid and viable medical solution. However, if you are just debating the seven bridges of Konigsberg, you can go much, much less strict, dropping 90% of the restrictions. Why? You are allowed, encouraged, to use more of your mind to solve a complex puzzle. You can perhaps do better than Immanuel Kant by asserting modes of mind that ethically doctors can't risk including. They have a strict specialization, a philosopher in a much more broader since doesn't have to accept those restrictions, as free thinking doesn't result (usually) in immediate deaths if they get it wrong. We have a dialectic we engage in, if we get it wrong, someone will eventually point it out, oh fucking well.... hopefully we don't cause too bad of a public tremor if our bad ideas are enthusiastically adopted by the public before the mistakes are found. Logical fallacies are designed to remove paradox, first and foremost (see Chryssipus's wiki page on logic, he was a Stoic logician, I take a opposite approach in embracing paradox as central to logic, we are both Stoa) or to forbid discussions or debates arbitrarily from embracing a line of thought presumed unhealthy or a dead end, or will cause the debate to abruptly end. I take the course most free, willing to go down most paths of the mind just for the sake of seeing how it works. I never accept someone crying logical fallacy, even if I'm silent and it isn't aimed at me, I encourage the debate to continue on as is, just for the sake of seeing how that LF sits naturally in the progress of the human mind and the natural dialectic. I've sat watching people just lie to one another fascinated about the motivations of doing so. Really, what is the point? They reached conclusions, and fairly thought out ones at times in the end, when they really shouldn't of under the current orthodoxy.

When it comes to Non-Duality, they just don't care about Logical Fallacies, so don't ask. You can argue and defeat them, if you are aware enough of the workings of the mind, but you'll find that ideas or knowledge won't stop them. They want that brain washing. They want that allure of peaceful nothingness to replace a trauma, from giving up their religion because Dawkins told them God doesn't exist, or because someone raped them, or because they were beaten, or alone, or tired of life, afraid to die. A long history and struggle through life is reason enough. Yeah, a very fast and knowledgeable thinker like myself can deconstruct every proposition faster than they can be proposed, seeing the parrern, and cut it off short.... but the motivation to follow through is still there. You've complicated their desire but not the motivations that drove them to explore such desires in the first place. The mind is looking for serenity as a respite from pain. For those not suffering much, merely intrigued with the unknowning, they will barely follow it, it will be a hobby at best. For those really wanting it, at a point, unless you are willing to jump in and stop each one by going through their case history, deep discussions about their childhood and the first time they wacked off or stole something, you've done nothing but annoy them. So let them be..... when they really, really demand to want it. You can do that Leonardo DiCaprio samurai beach scene from Inception if they indicate they are trapped in the logic and want out, but unless they want it, just accept their free will in deluding themselves, in destroying their brain from conditioning a way of viewing the world. We all, after all condition the mind for something, and no two Dualists will look at the world in the same way.

I recommend watching the Sanskrit movie (actual Sanskrit, not a modern language, has subtitles) about the life and philosophy of Adi Shankara. It was a post Buddhist school of Vedanta thought, of modern Hinduism. He was a important philosopher in this tradition. Groups like the Hall of Mirrors are a much more refined, method oriented version of this.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HoIomFriTwM

I myself am a Boydian, a Machiavellian, a Stoic and a Catholic. If I'm looking for a good thinker from India, I'm more likely to say Chanakya than Shankara. Doesn't mean I don't explore the different schools of philosophy frokmdiffernet civilizations and time periods though. It takes a very, very long time, I'm in my mid 30s, so have a few decades still to learn every major philosophical tradition of the recorded world. Advaita isn't something to trifle with until you earned the right to disregard it. It can be cleverly complex at the very points it seems simplistic, and the hardest parts of it are often the most shallow. I can glance at it now and call shit on it, but I have earned that right. It is much more complex than Solipsism is, and should be investigated by western philosophers, but I would argue against adoption. I'm hands off on what branch of Duality you can settle into, but do encourage philosophers to find or make a school of philosophy to settle in, even if it is just a eclectic mix. You should have opinions and come to your own conclusions. This irony of Advaita is, if followed sincerely, you won't be able to have opinions or conclusions of your own after a while. At least in theory. Only people in a truely Non-dual state are comatose. Everyone else is a fraud, or are bullshitting themselves.

Hence why I don't encourage mass crusades against that silly philosophy. Most are sincere self bullshitters, but once they come out of it all, what do they have? Same pains as before, and a awareness of a life wasted screwing around with nothing.

That movie again, I strongly recommend watching it.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HoIomFriTwM
surreptitious57
Posts: 4257
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Hall Of Mirrors Request (Duality vs Non-Duality discussion)

Post by surreptitious57 »

We have a non dualist here called Dontaskme who you could engage in Socratic debate with
That could be a rather interesting open ended exchange given your very different mind sets
User avatar
Arising_uk
Posts: 12314
Joined: Wed Oct 17, 2007 2:31 am

Re: Hall Of Mirrors Request (Duality vs Non-Duality discussion)

Post by Arising_uk »

EchoesOfTheHorizon wrote: A certain someone on this site has asked my to explain what is going on on this Facebook thread philosophically, if it relates to the Indian school of Non-Dualism. ...
Surely then you and this certain someone should do this by PM? As I think most of us don't give a toss what Wastebook is up to.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Hall Of Mirrors Request (Duality vs Non-Duality discussion)

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Dualism is strictly an approximation of Non-Duality in the respects it exists as the boundaries of "One" as randomness. Dualism is an observation of perpetual movment, through approximation, and Non-Duality implies (generally speaking) a lack of movement.

The problem occurs in the respect that Dualism and Non-Duality observe a dualism in themselves, for to call one or the other an illusion is to say they are deficient in truth...but not "nothing". Re-read this point as it is vital.

In these respects a polarity forms between the two as one perspective seeks to leverage itself over the other, and the result is an constant alternation between the two resulting in a continual reapplication of definition.

In these respect a third element is available as synthesis, where both exist at the same time an continually manifest definition through altnernation. In a seperate respect neither view points exist or do no exist.


If we embrace all three alternatives at one time as "perpetual" or "infinite", with:

1) Non-Duality being infinite stability or non-movement. (Positive)

2) Duality being infinite instability or movement, as an approximation of Non-Duality. (Negative)

3) Synthesis as the both providing perpetual dimensional limits and perpetual possible limits/non- limit as infinity itself. (Neutrality)

With all being 1/3 of the truth, as .333333... we can observe all as 1 through .9999999. We can observe 3 as 1.

In a seperate respect with all being 3 individual truths we can observe 1 as 3.

Furthermore we can observe, between the alternations of 1 as 3 and 3 as 1, a rotation between perpetual expansion and contraction (mathematically speaking) with the median point being "proportionality" itself as "reason".

In these respects, and I believe alot of people will disagree with me here, Duality and Non-Duality can co-exist without contradiction much in the same manner "1" and "2" do.
Last edited by Eodnhoj7 on Thu Dec 14, 2017 8:20 pm, edited 1 time in total.
EchoesOfTheHorizon
Posts: 356
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2017 6:08 am

Re: Hall Of Mirrors Request (Duality vs Non-Duality discussion)

Post by EchoesOfTheHorizon »

Arising_uk wrote: Tue Dec 12, 2017 1:38 pm
EchoesOfTheHorizon wrote: A certain someone on this site has asked my to explain what is going on on this Facebook thread philosophically, if it relates to the Indian school of Non-Dualism. ...
Surely then you and this certain someone should do this by PM? As I think most of us don't give a toss what Wastebook is up to.
We are unfortunately still doing it by PM, but it isn't done better by PM, you are quite incorrect, it is better done out in the open, because others need to see what and how the discussion goes.

See, (and I'm talking more to S57 now) you've seen me argue Nihilism doesn't exist several times in the past, and have also knocked down the idea that Buddhism is Nihilistic in the Nietzschean sense.... I'm incredibly Anti-Nietzschean but also cosmopolitan, I'm aware that the Japanese Nietzscheans have and will continue to be the main line in that thought intellectually long after it dies off in the west, and they've all more or less laughed at the concept that Buddhism is Nihilistic.

However, the religion that comes closest isn't Buddhism, but basic Monism, your Advaitian Non-Dualism (need to point out other schools of Advaita exist that aren't really Non-Dualist, like Advaita Vedanta, it is closer to Neoplatonism.... I won't go into why here, complicated, and this isn't that high of a specialist forum, more of a he he ha ha forum). It is what is slowly seeping "BACK INTO" the west. Last time we had to deal with it on the large stage was Byzantium, was a big difficulty to the eastern church. I've found fragments from just prior to the Latin conquest of Constantinople that it was still around. It was argued, and defeated, Photius records the defeat, but doesn't give more than a few paragraphs of info.

In Pakistan, the state religion of Islam collapsed under Dara Shihok, who confused Monism with Monotheism. People think it is Salafi and Wahhabism that riled Pakistan up in reaction to the English, due to the writings of Ibn Taymiyyah
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ibn_Taymiyyah
it isn't, they went bezerk once they realized a new religion.... a incredibly silly one at that, tanked them, and launched a counter jihad. They've been incredibly riled up ever since, that wasn't a external conquest, but a internal reformation. Scared the shit out of the Sunnis, and every red neck bumpkin in the area ever since has been a hawk over any sign of unorthodox interpretation.

I'm looking at Europe in 100 years, three top religions are going to be Catholicism, Islam, but I'm increasingly convinced it will be variations of this Monism. They don't launch jihads, they don't suicide bombing, etc.... but they do more or less play endless word games and quit. They lack the intellectual complexity of Dogen's Zen (which can be rather brutal, given what they do during full moons, quite a workout) or the wisdom of the Nicheran Movement which mocks such deadlog techniques. They are just slobbering morons who blink and stare. They don't have a aspiration beyond that. They don't even have the motivation to kill themselves, as that involves dualistic effort.

The weakest intellectual classes in Europe are going to sink the fastest into this religion of nothing. They are going to be turned off from Catholic traditionalism and intellectualism, as well as Islams militarism and intellectualism (not both are intellectual, Im thinking of people who don't like to think) and will love a philosophy that doesn't put pressure on them to believe in anything, that truely for the first time seems to fit that "spiritual but not religious" identification they are always reaching for.

Europe has a fast declining population, very little to believe in, and is being pressured from the outside by market fluctuations, migrant populations replacing the aboriginal population, often openly hostile to them, as well as a general discontent and hopelessness to reform. They've been systematically fucked with to the point they wouldn't know how to fix their problems even if they started winni elections suddenly. Look at the U.K. with the Brexit.... clueless in regards what to do with it, would be a good thing if they had a clue, but they are a population without a clue, hence the ongoing nightmare. Add a few generations of this chaos, and the widespread availability of these missionaries over the internet. I think this is poised to be the third great religion of Europe. It is unlikely to make much penetration in the US, maybe Canada.... but the Canadian population is heavily dependent on immigrants to maintain population (otherwise canada would cease to exist). It doesn't really matter in that case.

It is important people study it a bit more now. It is going to be very difficult to the model of government in the west, Represenative Democracies, to survive if essential voting blocks are literally, absolutely disinterested slobbering fools who stare at drywall declaring they are God, but after a while shutting even that Dualist thought out, and just starring.... starring, like the Emperor from Kin Dza Dza! I don't want the world getting even dumber than it is. This shit has been known to cause incredible nuisance issues to civilizations it infects. I don't care what you believe in, or do as much (unless it is truely evil) so long as you fucking try to do something.

Still waiting for that original person to respond though here, no clue why he is sheepish. Non-Dualists don't exactly have mafia connections, it is okay to openly talk about them. They are contradictory crap piles, and if they really "believe" what they preach they shouldn't be insulted or plotting or planning advanced rebuttals. They should have the intellectual complexity of a corn stalk. Hence why I'm afraid it is going to storm Europe like wildfire in the short future, they are already half way there, slobbering and staring at walls, smiling like fools. What works for a cat shouldn't be the aim for what humans do. I've listened to them discussing the satisfaction of meditating with their cats.... a napping, lazy cat isn't something for a human with a massive complex brain to emulate. We should be like, building pyramids and landing on mars, and curing stuff. Fuck Non-Duality.
EchoesOfTheHorizon
Posts: 356
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2017 6:08 am

Re: Hall Of Mirrors Request (Duality vs Non-Duality discussion)

Post by EchoesOfTheHorizon »

Oh, anonymous he/she shall be.

In order to strive in the dialectic, you are eventually going to have to come out of the shadows and give chance for others to bruise your ego. Having a big ego in philosophy isn't about being in the center of hyperbole, puffed up or grandiose, for example, I offer more wounds and scars than most people ever would be comfortable revealing, it is about learning how to grapple with personas, motivations, expectations, premeditation and studying others and the ideas they hold. I can be right and completely despised, and I've earned that capacity. Wasn't given, but taken. At a certain point, you'll have to learn the best way to approach the mind isn't sideways in a unorthodox fashion, but straight on with the fullness of your being. It is the confluence of the soul, many faucets brimming all at once that has the best chance of winning a debate. It isn't just being well studied, or having the best argument, or wanting to win. These are tactical moves, you should be studying the larger strategy of rhetoric, not or mere words and phrases, but the forcefulness of soul and being. We don't hold in high esteem the faceless logicians of history, nobody is fascinated with them in philosophy past Immanuel Kant, and even then, nobody really ever finishes his works. We look to the biographies of great men tied to great ideas. Hiding isn't going to win a argument, no point comes when you've built up enough arguments after years of avoiding them, where you'll finally discover you can win them. You need to be braver enough to jump into the fray and loose some, make a fool of yourself, but keep on trying, and seek the truth in all matters. Only way you'll ever win a argument against high odds, have any success. People still respect minds on the primal basis, even in intellectual matters. Come out, give it a few good jabs. A lot more about Non Duality exists, and I'm not going to discuss it hiding in shadowy PMs. Pirates always raise their banner when they go in for the kill, nothing to be bashful about. :twisted:
surreptitious57
Posts: 4257
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: Hall Of Mirrors Request (Duality vs Non-Duality discussion)

Post by surreptitious57 »

EchoesOfTheHorizon wrote:
See ( and I am talking more to S57 now ) you have seen me argue Nihilism does not exist several times
Nihilism is a state of mind and it most definitely does exist. What you actually mean is that you do not agree with it but that is something entirely
different. I used to describe myself as a nihilist but absurdism is a better descriptor of my worldview so I use that instead. Nihilism in the classical sense is a rejection of all meaning but absurdism only rejects objective ones. So I do not think there is any objective meaning in the grand scheme of things. But you can though give subjective meaning to your own existence and this is what I do. The Universe however has no meaning. It just is
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Hall Of Mirrors Request (Duality vs Non-Duality discussion)

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

A simple observation can be founded in the respect that if a perspective exists, it exists as a reality in itself. We can observe these through the axioms of Phenomenology founded, or at least expanded upon, by Husserl and Heidegger. The problem comes in terms of contradiction, where one perspective claims to be true and the other false, resulting in a perspective of continual negative (as ever approaching a 0 dimensional state) rooted in Neitzchian thought. However if that is the case, then where did the other perspective come from; this is under the premise that all lies have a degree of truth in them and exist as things in themselves.

Is a strict form of negation in logic, logical itself considering it requires a continual form of positivism to ground it? If negation is truth, through a strict deductive logic as atomization through analysis, the inductive logic is a necessary polar dual as generalization allow the deductive form to be a general form in itself.

The problem occurs when viewing axioms (and their corresponding perspectives and philosophies that affect the world) under a form of modal realism as to how can all these axioms exist as phenomena in themselves? Phenomena that relate to other phenomena to form further phenomena?

In these respects our understanding of contradiction has to change from one of logical incongruence to one of logical incompletion. This implies a strict empirical approach is contradictory as time is the great divider. "A" and "B" philosophies may appear contradictory, but are they really contradictory or have their logical structure not been worked out to a degree of unison?

Non-Duality and Dualism can be viewed as non-contradictory is viewed as elements of a structure of x ≥ 3 dimensions.

The problem with the non-dualists is that in arguing against the dualists, they create a dualism. In a separate respect the dualists arguing against the non-dualists must observe a non-dualistic system. These structures contradict themselves if only viewed on their own terms, as they are incomplete on their own terms.


In regards to the moral systems of non-duality, they inherently reflect the golden rule of "do unto others as you would have done unto you" considering ever person is strictly and extension of the self. We see this mild form of reincarnation within nature as the genetic lineage. Non-Duality can be observed as the maintenance of one's integrity through the act of self-reflection as "1".

In regards to the moral systems of duality, we observe the necessity of individuation (similiar to a Jungian sense) where one must manifest themselves through an exertion of the individual will, whether viewed from a Neitzchien sense of the word or through a belief system where one must "work out their own salvation". Duality, in these respects can be observed as the exertion of force as truth.

This dualism within the person of having a nature of both "unity" and "multiplicity" can be observe in a third neutral sense where "man is the measurer of all things". In these respects we can understand man as a mortal god and God(s) as an immortal man or men. These inherent nature of man, as measurer, in many respect leads to an inrefutable conclusion that man's faculties of reason are strictly and extension of a God whose shares this same trifold nature of 1 in 3 and 3 in 1. In these respects, Christianity gives the impression of being the "fullest" of religions in this matter, however if we are to take a look at further religions we can see this same trifold nature such as:



1) the Hindu Trimurti
2) the Hindu Tridevi
3) the Three Jewels of Buddhism
4) the Three Pure Ones of Taoism
5) the Christian Holy Trinity
6) the Triple Goddess of Wicca
7) the Norse sons of Bor: Odin, Vili, and Vé
8 ) The sons of Cronus: Zeus, Poseidon, and Hades.
9) etc., as further research can be done.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3
EchoesOfTheHorizon
Posts: 356
Joined: Mon Oct 23, 2017 6:08 am

Re: Hall Of Mirrors Request (Duality vs Non-Duality discussion)

Post by EchoesOfTheHorizon »

Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Dec 13, 2017 6:37 pm A simple observation can be founded in the respect that if a perspective exists, it exists as a reality in itself. We can observe these through the axioms of Phenomenology founded, or at least expanded upon, by Husserl and Heidegger. The problem comes in terms of contradiction, where one perspective claims to be true and the other false, resulting in a perspective of continual negative (as ever approaching a 0 dimensional state) rooted in Neitzchian thought. However if that is the case, then where did the other perspective come from; this is under the premise that all lies have a degree of truth in them and exist as things in themselves.

Is a strict form of negation in logic, logical itself considering it requires a continual form of positivism to ground it? If negation is truth, through a strict deductive logic as atomization through analysis, the inductive logic is a necessary polar dual as generalization allow the deductive form to be a general form in itself.

The problem occurs when viewing axioms (and their corresponding perspectives and philosophies that affect the world) under a form of modal realism as to how can all these axioms exist as phenomena in themselves? Phenomena that relate to other phenomena to form further phenomena?

In these respects our understanding of contradiction has to change from one of logical incongruence to one of logical incompletion. This implies a strict empirical approach is contradictory as time is the great divider. "A" and "B" philosophies may appear contradictory, but are they really contradictory or have their logical structure not been worked out to a degree of unison?

Non-Duality and Dualism can be viewed as non-contradictory is viewed as elements of a structure of x ≥ 3 dimensions.

The problem with the non-dualists is that in arguing against the dualists, they create a dualism. In a separate respect the dualists arguing against the non-dualists must observe a non-dualistic system. These structures contradict themselves if only viewed on their own terms, as they are incomplete on their own terms.


In regards to the moral systems of non-duality, they inherently reflect the golden rule of "do unto others as you would have done unto you" considering ever person is strictly and extension of the self. We see this mild form of reincarnation within nature as the genetic lineage. Non-Duality can be observed as the maintenance of one's integrity through the act of self-reflection as "1".

In regards to the moral systems of duality, we observe the necessity of individuation (similiar to a Jungian sense) where one must manifest themselves through an exertion of the individual will, whether viewed from a Neitzchien sense of the word or through a belief system where one must "work out their own salvation". Duality, in these respects can be observed as the exertion of force as truth.

This dualism within the person of having a nature of both "unity" and "multiplicity" can be observe in a third neutral sense where "man is the measurer of all things". In these respects we can understand man as a mortal god and God(s) as an immortal man or men. These inherent nature of man, as measurer, in many respect leads to an inrefutable conclusion that man's faculties of reason are strictly and extension of a God whose shares this same trifold nature of 1 in 3 and 3 in 1. In these respects, Christianity gives the impression of being the "fullest" of religions in this matter, however if we are to take a look at further religions we can see this same trifold nature such as:



1) the Hindu Trimurti
2) the Hindu Tridevi
3) the Three Jewels of Buddhism
4) the Three Pure Ones of Taoism
5) the Christian Holy Trinity
6) the Triple Goddess of Wicca
7) the Norse sons of Bor: Odin, Vili, and Vé
8 ) The sons of Cronus: Zeus, Poseidon, and Hades.
9) etc., as further research can be done.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3

Ya for you, just reinvented a new form of Qualified Non-Dualism. I hardly invented the term, and it obviously isn't Non-Dual, but whatever, cause nobody much cares about the semantics of pretend Non-Duality. I don't know why people insist on doing this, but you are not a new phenomena here Eod. I mean, your exact conclusion is, but there are whole religions in the subcategory you just struck upon. Go google "Qualified Non Dualism" to see. They always make me giggle, but it comes close at times to Neo-Platonism for the more mainstream schools. They continued on the whole shebang of endless explanations explaining how everything works and is actually one. As a Christian obviously I wouldn't go for it, Ex Nihilo creation and all, God and Soul not of this. Interesting Science hasn't started down that past despite the current reign of atheism in it.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Hall Of Mirrors Request (Duality vs Non-Duality discussion)

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

EchoesOfTheHorizon wrote: Thu Dec 14, 2017 9:35 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote: Wed Dec 13, 2017 6:37 pm A simple observation can be founded in the respect that if a perspective exists, it exists as a reality in itself. We can observe these through the axioms of Phenomenology founded, or at least expanded upon, by Husserl and Heidegger. The problem comes in terms of contradiction, where one perspective claims to be true and the other false, resulting in a perspective of continual negative (as ever approaching a 0 dimensional state) rooted in Neitzchian thought. However if that is the case, then where did the other perspective come from; this is under the premise that all lies have a degree of truth in them and exist as things in themselves.

Is a strict form of negation in logic, logical itself considering it requires a continual form of positivism to ground it? If negation is truth, through a strict deductive logic as atomization through analysis, the inductive logic is a necessary polar dual as generalization allow the deductive form to be a general form in itself.

The problem occurs when viewing axioms (and their corresponding perspectives and philosophies that affect the world) under a form of modal realism as to how can all these axioms exist as phenomena in themselves? Phenomena that relate to other phenomena to form further phenomena?

In these respects our understanding of contradiction has to change from one of logical incongruence to one of logical incompletion. This implies a strict empirical approach is contradictory as time is the great divider. "A" and "B" philosophies may appear contradictory, but are they really contradictory or have their logical structure not been worked out to a degree of unison?

Non-Duality and Dualism can be viewed as non-contradictory is viewed as elements of a structure of x ≥ 3 dimensions.

The problem with the non-dualists is that in arguing against the dualists, they create a dualism. In a separate respect the dualists arguing against the non-dualists must observe a non-dualistic system. These structures contradict themselves if only viewed on their own terms, as they are incomplete on their own terms.


In regards to the moral systems of non-duality, they inherently reflect the golden rule of "do unto others as you would have done unto you" considering ever person is strictly and extension of the self. We see this mild form of reincarnation within nature as the genetic lineage. Non-Duality can be observed as the maintenance of one's integrity through the act of self-reflection as "1".

In regards to the moral systems of duality, we observe the necessity of individuation (similiar to a Jungian sense) where one must manifest themselves through an exertion of the individual will, whether viewed from a Neitzchien sense of the word or through a belief system where one must "work out their own salvation". Duality, in these respects can be observed as the exertion of force as truth.

This dualism within the person of having a nature of both "unity" and "multiplicity" can be observe in a third neutral sense where "man is the measurer of all things". In these respects we can understand man as a mortal god and God(s) as an immortal man or men. These inherent nature of man, as measurer, in many respect leads to an inrefutable conclusion that man's faculties of reason are strictly and extension of a God whose shares this same trifold nature of 1 in 3 and 3 in 1. In these respects, Christianity gives the impression of being the "fullest" of religions in this matter, however if we are to take a look at further religions we can see this same trifold nature such as:



1) the Hindu Trimurti
2) the Hindu Tridevi
3) the Three Jewels of Buddhism
4) the Three Pure Ones of Taoism
5) the Christian Holy Trinity
6) the Triple Goddess of Wicca
7) the Norse sons of Bor: Odin, Vili, and Vé
8 ) The sons of Cronus: Zeus, Poseidon, and Hades.
9) etc., as further research can be done.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3

Ya for you, just reinvented a new form of Qualified Non-Dualism.
Non-Dualism, while implying a monistic nature, is not limited strictly to it. The most accurate approach would be a trinitarianism that exists as 1 in 3 and 3 in 1. We can observe this within mathematics as 1,2 and 3 form the foundations for all natural numbers much in the same manner positive, negative and neutral form the basis for physics, logic, etc.

Monism, as you have pointed out, is contradictory in its own nature as randomness is its inherent limit, hence some logical problems which monist arguments fall into is a "randomness as everything". The problem occurs in the reverse respect, that 1 is a foundational dimension for many quantitative and qualitative realites as the measurement process is rooted in this dual nature of unity and multiplicity as unification (positive) and individuation through units (negative). 1 in a third neutral element in itself as dimensions which act as limits and in a seperate respect no-limit as 1 must be ad-infinitum.


Monism must be observed as causal, with all effects being approximate causes, with approximation itself existing as "randomness".

Dualism must be observed as acausal, with all relations being actual and potential movements which circulate through eachother. Dualism is not a dimension in itself, but rather an approximation of Monism through movement as multiplicity.

Trinitarianism, which is the word I will use for now even though I do not like it, must be observed as acausal cause (or unmoved mover) with the dimensional limits existing a neutral space providing the roots for unity and multiplicity. In a seperate respect these limits have a possibilistic nature as "possible limits" or "no-limits" which equivocates to a form of modal realism of measurement processes.


I hardly invented the term, and it obviously isn't Non-Dual, but whatever, cause nobody much cares about the semantics of pretend Non-Duality.
And what you say is not "semantic"?

I don't know why people insist on doing this, but you are not a new phenomena here Eod.
I know that, but what is "new" is the logical potential that these three degrees of reality actually are not contradictory. And what I mean by "new" equates more to "re-remembered".

I mean, your exact conclusion is, but there are whole religions in the subcategory you just struck upon. Go google "Qualified Non Dualism" to see. They always make me giggle, but it comes close at times to Neo-Platonism for the more mainstream schools.
Platonism would extend more to the Monist school, in my opinion only, considering it deals with abstract constants.
Aristotelianism would extend more to the Dualistic school, considering it deals with movement as physicality.
The Socratic element would manifest as the synthesis of both, considering from a historical context Plato and Aristotle where students of Socrates and their perspective are "rooted" in his whether they intended for it or not.


They continued on the whole shebang of endless explanations explaining how everything works and is actually one. As a Christian obviously I wouldn't go for it,
I am not sure that it necessarily contradicts Christianity as "we are all children [extensions] of God". The process of measurement as an application of 1 in unity and individuation, is a universal bond that observes man as the medial measurer of reality. Considering Christ is God as man, with man as God being the biproduct of his "synthesis", Christianity in appearance may be the "fullest" of the the faiths, with each faith still having many facets and degrees of truth in it as extensions of this faith.

The one inescapable fact is that man understands God through man, and we can observe a universal form of measurement in the form of self-reflection.


Ex Nihilo creation and all, God and Soul not of this. Interesting Science hasn't started down that past despite the current reign of atheism in it.
Nothingness is just the limit of being, and being as "infinite" (even though you don't agree with infinity, by default has infinite nothingness as a boundary to it. Creation from nothingness, is simply God reflecting himself ad-infinitum in opposition to nothingness. As everything of being exists through God, and nothingness/evil is an absence and not a thing in itself, then by default everything comes from nothingness through the self-reflecting in opposition to nothingness.

In regards to the religions, they appear to be unified through some common denominator...the most probable being that of "man". Even the hindu faith requires the gods to appear as avatars through man. We can observe the process of measurement as another common denominator in number as both quantity and quality.
"Do unto other as you would have done unto you" is a common theme expressed in various ways through these religions. They appeared to be rooted in a form of self-reflective reasoning as a universal median of measurement. Considering that certain philosophers argued that God exists through a process of self-reflection, the nature of mirroring give structure both to ourselves and in turn the reality around us.

Reason, as the manifestation of ratios, and structures through symmetry as ratio, appears to be the divine spark that makes man a mortal god. I doubt the atheists would argue against that observation.
User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Hall Of Mirrors Request (Duality vs Non-Duality discussion)

Post by Greta »

As usual, a densely packed combination of interesting fact and tremendously biased and naive opinion, presented as authoritative:
Non-Duality isn't like the mediatation of the Jesus Prayer or Mantras of Tibetan Buddhism (well, Tibetan Buddhism does have a Non-Dualism school, they can't escape the debate either) where they keep saying words over and over to gain a psychological effect.... the goal is to vanquish language and verbalized thinking, or the need to orient to things, and just stare blankly out into nothingness. It is the Brahmo (not Brahmin, Brahmo) religion of India. Just waking up on the cusp of the void, staring out, not knowing place, history, your person.... just starring. That is what they want, and in theory at least, once they get there, they don't even want it, or accept it, or think about it. They are a potato. They are the mindless frog of Zen Buddhism. They shut down much of their brain.
What you see on the outside of a meditator is not the same as what's happening on the inside. The point is not mindlessness, but space - space in which something can happen. Meditation, aside from being used for relaxation and healing, is often about mental practice - focus and surrender/receptivity. The first step in gaining focus is something like the blanking of the mind. But that's only the first step. The real point is to sharpen that mental skill of sharp focus, not to be blank.

So the mindset in meditation is ideally not thinking large, explicit, already-formed-but-reiterated thoughts but simply waiting to see what might pop up from the unconscious if given a chance; it is one way of opening up inspiration and bringing clarity. This is theoretical; I don't meditate these days myself, being rather more fond of analysis and hedonism. It's helpful for many others, though. Horses for courses.

What you appear to be doing here is observing people with different aptitudes and inclinations and judging them rather than appreciating that they will necessarily have different strengths and weaknesses. The latter approach is the one that facilitates new learning rather that becoming ever more eloquent within a sound chamber of like-minded people. It's easy to objectify one's ideological enemies, much harder to appreciate that the idea of ideological enemies is valid in only a limited, practical sense and much ill will is pointless, unnecessary and basically just hammery. Cartoonish hatreds. The alternative is to simply do what needs to be done, say what needs to be said, and skip the objectification and "wartime talk". We are all human and denizens of the Earth.

Europe's future strikes me as more likely one with a minority of super-wealthy "monist" technologically-enabled overlords presiding over a mostly Muslim and short-lived population, who will basically act as a resource, sounding board and inconvenience for the ultra-wealthy controllers. The harder the masses fight, the more pressure there is to develop ever more potent AI controls. Given the odd Islamic penchant to never stop fighting (even when it's ridiculous), one can imagine the upcoming selection pressure on the new smart weaponry of the billionaire elites. The player to watch in the new world will be Russia, who enjoys many natural advantages but millions of people from the subcontinent and the middle east will be driving northwards as population, pollution and climate change make their homelands increasingly unhealthy and dangerous. I suspect that big things will happen in the future along their southern borders, and perhaps the first examples of serious military AI.

Yet there are no "good guys" or "bad guys" in this picture, just players engaged in a degree of growth or entropy in a re-forming world aiming to maximise their own influence. Even here, as with metaphysics, it's a matter of perspective. Yes, reality is one and, yes, reality is dual. Believing one or the other means little in the face of the great competence and capacity found in people with all manner of beliefs, non-beliefs and general ideas.
thata23
Posts: 54
Joined: Mon Dec 04, 2017 3:06 am

Re: Hall Of Mirrors Request (Duality vs Non-Duality discussion)

Post by thata23 »

Greta wrote: Fri Dec 15, 2017 3:34 am
What you appear to be doing here is observing people with different aptitudes and inclinations and judging them rather than appreciating that they will necessarily have different strengths and weaknesses. The latter approach is the one that facilitates new learning rather that becoming ever more eloquent within a sound chamber of like-minded people. It's easy to objectify one's ideological enemies, much harder to appreciate that the idea of ideological enemies is valid in only a limited, practical sense and much ill will is pointless, unnecessary and basically just hammery. Cartoonish hatreds. The alternative is to simply do what needs to be done, say what needs to be said, and skip the objectification and "wartime talk". We are all human and denizens of the Earth.

Yet there are no "good guys" or "bad guys" in this picture, just players engaged in a degree of growth or entropy in a re-forming world aiming to maximise their own influence. Even here, as with metaphysics, it's a matter of perspective. Yes, reality is one and, yes, reality is dual. Believing one or the other means little in the face of the great competence and capacity found in people with all manner of beliefs, non-beliefs and general ideas.
I love the part of this quote in bold. No one is an individual on this Earth - we are all connected and would not be who we are without everyone else here. If you think about it just a little bit, it becomes painfully obvious. Out of simply having the most positive hopes for humanity, I do have to disagree with that there are no "good guys" or "bad guys" - I would like to believe (so much that maybe I have forced myself to believe) that deep down all of us are good people and that mistakes or bad choices just occur as a result of all of us failing to act correctly to our environment. As everything and everyone becomes more transparent and everyone realizes everything is connected, these will become less and less as people realize their mistakes affect them as much as other people, and that in fact those other people are them and vice versa. We are all from stardust.
User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: Hall Of Mirrors Request (Duality vs Non-Duality discussion)

Post by Greta »

thata23 wrote: Fri Dec 15, 2017 7:11 amOut of simply having the most positive hopes for humanity, I do have to disagree with that there are no "good guys" or "bad guys" - I would like to believe (so much that maybe I have forced myself to believe) that deep down all of us are good people and that mistakes or bad choices just occur as a result of all of us failing to act correctly to our environment.
Fair comment. It really depends on the time span of your analysis. Big picture, what we have is four billion years of alternating growth and destruction, stagnation and renewal, and all of that somehow lead from microbe to humanity.

Humanity in itself seems much the same - wars and growth, struggle and prosperity, chaos and order, poverty and wealth, ruthlessness and empathy, brilliance and stupidity. Yet somehow out of that maelstrom of benign, harmful and neutral influences comes growth, development and advancement.
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 8595
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Hall Of Mirrors Request (Duality vs Non-Duality discussion)

Post by Eodnhoj7 »

Greta wrote: Fri Dec 15, 2017 10:22 am
thata23 wrote: Fri Dec 15, 2017 7:11 amOut of simply having the most positive hopes for humanity, I do have to disagree with that there are no "good guys" or "bad guys" - I would like to believe (so much that maybe I have forced myself to believe) that deep down all of us are good people and that mistakes or bad choices just occur as a result of all of us failing to act correctly to our environment.
Fair comment. It really depends on the time span of your analysis. Big picture, what we have is four billion years of alternating growth and destruction, stagnation and renewal, and all of that somehow lead from microbe to humanity.

Humanity in itself seems much the same - wars and growth, struggle and prosperity, chaos and order, poverty and wealth, ruthlessness and empathy, brilliance and stupidity. Yet somehow out of that maelstrom of benign, harmful and neutral influences comes growth, development and advancement.
What if the end of it was not humanity, but humanity was the means of it? This alternation, between being and non-being is a form of symmetry in itself and exponentiation in structure results. Dimensions manifests themselves through further dimensions. In these respects what we under of reality is the manifestation of dimensions, whose root nature is in measurement as measurement itself is the manifestation of dimensions. When we observe dimensions we observe a dual unity and multiplicity in nature, with the proportionality between the two acting as a neutral dimension that gives "boundary".

Take for example; "X" person is and "individual" relative to "Y" and "Z" individuals. "X" is one of many. However in a seperate respect "X" is unified as "X" striclty just "is" and as "being" is unity in himself.

"X" person in turn exists as an unified person in him/her self as "X", while in a separate respect is 1 of many individuals that exist in relation.

It is this duality between unity and multiplicity that manifests "x" as the medial dimension of proportion through these degrees as a "measurer" that maintains, applies and created dimensions. This is considering everything we understand of reality in both quantity and quality observes roots in unity and multiplicity.

"X" as the person is a dimension in him/her self in the respect that he/she gives direction to reality as a median between being 1 and many.

Man as measurer observes man as median.
Post Reply