Philosophy Now Forum

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2018 8:18 pm

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2018 7:54 pm Atla wrote:

Your understanding of philosophy is quite incomplete. There indeed exists a completely different way of looking at the world, which is distinct from idealism/monism/dual aspect monism etc. even though this is probably in your lexicon. You are trapped in a box, stop criticizing me for it.

I did wonder if perhaps I am trapped in a box. If you or anyone else knows of another conceptual frame for theories of existence ,mediated by a specific vocabulary, please tell.

I did not say you are trapped in a box I said you have not examined a box . A box is not a set of disconnected ideas but is an integrated heuristic system.

http://www.iep.utm.edu/substanc/

That's what I've been doing all this time: telling you that there is another "conceptual frame" if you will, nondual thinking. Not just for theories of existence but also for pretty much everything else. Thinking without divisions. It is fundamentally incompatible with theories of substance.

As far as I know it doesn't have a well-established specific vocabulary yet, especially not in English, I tried to use words that they usually seem to use when explaining nondualism.

Greta wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2018 11:59 pm Atla, if you subscribe to an alternative body of knowledge that runs parallel to the mainstream body of knowledge, doesn't that mean you are simply trapped in a different box to the one in which Belinda allegedly resides?

Where is the middle ground?

And there is only one body of (scientific) knowledge, with two ways to think about it.

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2018 9:48 am Atla wrote:

And there is only one body of (scientific) knowledge, with two ways to think about it.

Only two?

Yes, I see these two as the two major categories of human thinking. By and large I haven't heard of a third one yet. Maybe there are, correct me if I'm wrong.

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2018 10:52 am Atla wrote:

Yes, I see these two as the two major categories of human thinking. By and large I haven't heard of a third one yet. Maybe there are, correct me if I'm wrong.

Please name those two major categories according to your preferred nomenclature , or mine, or someone else's.
Why so coy?

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2018 7:58 am

Greta wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2018 11:59 pmAtla, if you subscribe to an alternative body of knowledge that runs parallel to the mainstream body of knowledge, doesn't that mean you are simply trapped in a different box to the one in which Belinda allegedly resides?

Where is the middle ground?

I can jump back and forth between the two thinking modes. Actually I mostly tend to be a dualist in my everyday life too, no one has an idea that I think differently because I don't show it.

But there is no middle ground, the two ways of thinking are fundamentally incompatible. And there is only one body of (scientific) knowledge, with two ways to think about it.

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2018 11:06 amNondual thinking: we realize that conceptual divisions are imaginary. "Things" are not-two, not-one.

Dualistic thinking: we don't realize that conceptual divisions are imaginary. "Things" really are things, in themselves.

Greta wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2018 12:35 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2018 7:58 am

Greta wrote: ↑Sun Jan 14, 2018 11:59 pmAtla, if you subscribe to an alternative body of knowledge that runs parallel to the mainstream body of knowledge, doesn't that mean you are simply trapped in a different box to the one in which Belinda allegedly resides?

Where is the middle ground?

I can jump back and forth between the two thinking modes. Actually I mostly tend to be a dualist in my everyday life too, no one has an idea that I think differently because I don't show it.

But there is no middle ground, the two ways of thinking are fundamentally incompatible. And there is only one body of (scientific) knowledge, with two ways to think about it.

Later ...

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2018 11:06 amNondual thinking: we realize that conceptual divisions are imaginary. "Things" are not-two, not-one.

Dualistic thinking: we don't realize that conceptual divisions are imaginary. "Things" really are things, in themselves.

I was referring to alternative bodies of knowledge, not modes of thinking.

Still, it's not ideal to embrace both of the above modes of thinking since the latter is unaware of basic philosophical tenets. Since Kant, what you refer to as "nondual thinking" is well established in scientific and philosophical circles, and Einstein made clear that all is relative so there already is strong awareness that the divisions and classification used for various phenomena are as based on our evolved senses as the actual things being observed.

Often this is not stated for the sake of economy, but is widely understood by scientists and philosophers.

Am I talking to a wall?

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2018 12:52 pm

Am I talking to a wall?

Don't be so bloody rude

Nondual thinking: we realize that conceptual divisions are imaginary. "Things" are not-two, not-one.

Dualistic thinking: we don't realize that conceptual divisions are imaginary. "Things" really are things, in themselves.

Belinda wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2018 1:04 pm Atla wrote:

Nondual thinking: we realize that conceptual divisions are imaginary. "Things" are not-two, not-one.

Dualistic thinking: we don't realize that conceptual divisions are imaginary. "Things" really are things, in themselves.

"We"? Concepts of differentiated entities are socially mediated. There may be life- supporting reasons for crystallising in conceptual language a specific thingness.

However there is no proof that thingness is substantially real in the sense that thingness transcends social reality. So I think I agree with you.

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

PS It's the responsibility of the transmitter in this case, you, to make yourself clear to the receiver, in this case, me.

Coy is not pejorative is it? I did not mean to hurt your feelings.

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2018 1:14 pm I made it as clear as I could. You claimed to have great knowledge of philosophy so I assumed you came across the nondualist stance before. Or if not, you would look it up.

I was unaware that this was strictly a Western-modern-philosophy forum.

Londoner wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2018 2:33 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Jan 15, 2018 1:14 pm I made it as clear as I could. You claimed to have great knowledge of philosophy so I assumed you came across the nondualist stance before. Or if not, you would look it up.

And what you find is:

Nondualism is a fuzzy concept, for which many definitions can be found.

I was unaware that this was strictly a Western-modern-philosophy forum.

This thread is about two things that arise in modern-ish Western Philosophy. In as far as they concern 'dualism', then it is the dualism of that tradition. Same word, but nothing to do with Nondualism in a religious or mystical sense.