There is No Dualism

[Eodnhoj7]

To argue that there is a multiplicity of things is to first paradoxically require that this multiplicity is connected through the act of distinguishing a thing as a thing. The fact that there are things necessitates these things are connected under the phenomenon of 'being a thing'.

[Impenitent]

if there were no multiplicity, there would not be different words...

language connects some things better than others, yet without it, who could say?

-Imp

[Iwannaplato]

To argue that there is a multiplicity of things is to first paradoxically require that this multiplicity is connected through the act of distinguishing a thing as a thing. The fact that there are things necessitates these things are connected under the phenomenon of 'being a thing'.

So, if two things are connected there is only one thing.
What happens when you hold hands with someone?

And then the dualism here:

Under these terms correct abstractions and correct empirical observations contradict.

or:

The intent contradicts the observation.

or even a THREEISM:

"Experience, meaning and knowledge" is the object becoming part of the observer.

or

All phenomena are dualistic in the respect you have the phenomenon and you have the absence of the phenomenon

or how about
those things that both are and describe other things
and
those things that merely are

or those things that we know
and
those things you think we need to know

Dualisms abound. Hail the mighty dualisms.
And the mighty monism.
And their combination.

And let's not forget third parties and the suppressed alternatives.

[Dontaskme]

To argue that there is a multiplicity of things is to first paradoxically require that this multiplicity is connected through the act of distinguishing a thing as a thing. The fact that there are things necessitates these things are connected under the phenomenon of 'being a thing'.

Well put.

For there to be a 'thing', a 'thing' must exist to know 'thing', so a 'thing' is known in the immediate moment of it's conception as and through the known word 'thing'.

That which is unknown, will eventually become known, as and through it's conception in this conception. Once the word 'thing' is known, conceived of as and through it's concept, the word 'thing' can never be known as unknowable.

The unknowable can never be known. The source of the unknown is the unknowable. Therefore, the unknown is the source of the known and not the unknowable.

Multiplicity, the many of the nondual ONE, duality is an illusion, an illusory appearance of the ONE appearing as two, but never two.

[Advocate]

[quote=Eodnhoj7 post_id=654016 time=1688572666 user_id=14533]
To argue that there is a multiplicity of things is to first paradoxically require that this multiplicity is connected through the act of distinguishing a thing as a thing. The fact that there are things necessitates these things are connected under the phenomenon of 'being a thing'.
[/quote]

All things are real as a pattern in a mind.

[Eodnhoj7]

if there were no multiplicity, there would not be different words...

language connects some things better than others, yet without it, who could say?

-Imp

There is no non-dualism either:

viewtopic.php?t=40349

[Eodnhoj7]

To argue that there is a multiplicity of things is to first paradoxically require that this multiplicity is connected through the act of distinguishing a thing as a thing. The fact that there are things necessitates these things are connected under the phenomenon of 'being a thing'.

So, if two things are connected there is only one thing.
What happens when you hold hands with someone?

And then the dualism here:

Under these terms correct abstractions and correct empirical observations contradict.

or:

The intent contradicts the observation.

or even a THREEISM:

"Experience, meaning and knowledge" is the object becoming part of the observer.

or

All phenomena are dualistic in the respect you have the phenomenon and you have the absence of the phenomenon

or how about
those things that both are and describe other things
and
those things that merely are

or those things that we know
and
those things you think we need to know

Dualisms abound. Hail the mighty dualisms.
And the mighty monism.
And their combination.

And let's not forget third parties and the suppressed alternatives.

There is no non-dualism either (your points may apply more directly to this thread):

viewtopic.php?t=40349

Both sides have rational arguments thus coming to the conclusion that there is dualism and non-dualism or neither dualism nor non-dualism. The arguments, when both applied, end in contradiction. Reality can be absurd.

[Eodnhoj7]

To argue that there is a multiplicity of things is to first paradoxically require that this multiplicity is connected through the act of distinguishing a thing as a thing. The fact that there are things necessitates these things are connected under the phenomenon of 'being a thing'.

All things are real as a pattern in a mind.

And what you said is a pattern in the mind.