How to Achieve Non-Dualism Intellectually?

[Atla]

No. I don't. You are imposing rules of conduct. That is an appeal to authority.

I simply point out the fallacy/contradiction together with corrective feedback. To engage it is to allow you to frame the discussion.

But your reference frame IS what is faulty!

Nope, you point out fallacies/contradictions based on strawmen. You don't actually address what the other one is saying.

Your reference frame is faulty.

That is an appeal to authority also AND appeal to purity also. Who decides what is and is not 'human language'. Who decides how language ought to be used/understood?

If there are no standards/consensuses whatsoever then what is the point of any communication? Again you shoot yourself in the foot.

Abductive reasoning is your error not mine. Information asymmetry is against you.

This is what I mean; you just externalized blame and failed to realize it / take ownership of it.

I just did! I expressed it in the consensus language of ENGLISH. Which is the language most broadly spoken around here.

The language of Philosophy is esoteric.

You didn't, you don't use English in an understandable way. It's not that difficult.

[Atla]

Except no one gives a damn about your wrong understanding of nonduality.

Oh really, like your the only person in the world that understands it correctly, okay if you say so, I have absolutely no arugment with that, enjoy your right understandings.. in your dreams pal.



As for my understandings, I don't give a damn about projections. I stopped identifying with those years ago.

God forbid if I ever dare say anything to you of a nondual context. Who died and made you the supreme almighty head Godman of all gods?

.

Stop crying, I've seen the same understanding that I use, used by many other people. And it has almost nothing to do with your Pseudo-Advaitan need to hurt others.

[TimeSeeker]

Word salad

No. Just applied science. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Receiver_ ... acteristic

Scientists too have developed their own, specialised language you know if you want to appeal to science - you might actually have to learn it...

the mind-body problem is a made up problem, as confirmed by all scientific evidence, which is consistent with nondualism. "

To appeal to the authority of science is to fall straight into dualism! Science experiments are minds (scientist) examining the bodies of other minds (test subjects)!

To resolve dualism using the scientific method you need to perform the experiment ON YOURSELF!

Practicing" (practicing what?) has nothing to do with it.

Practicing decision-making, living and being from the first-person perspective!

You can't even conceptualize "learning" without having a conception of your own mind.
For you need to have a conception of how your thought process is flawed (is), and how your thought process can be fixed (ought) and what to change in order to fix it.

Introspection and self-correction requires multiple conceptions of your own mind! Past and future.

[Dontaskme]

Pseudo-Advaita has already helped ruin your family as you admitted some time ago, guess it's too late for you to face it all. All you can do now is cling to your delusions.

You dumb fool.

I said one time here in a discussion that was not even with you, that to call your mother your mother is a false claim, which it is, if you are truely honest with yourself, but are not because you prefer to cling to belief and story of you for fear of not-existing...So I dared to say no one is your mother except in the conceptual story of belief and imagination. Big fricking deal, and now you go off on your deluded self righteous rant about me not understanding myself, what the heck?

Big fucking deal, if you took that to be what I would literally say to my actual family. No one in my family have been ruined here except your own deluded literal belief that that's what you thought, not that I give a shit what you think anyway.....you believe in some words you read on a computer screen at the PN forum...that are not literally real or true except in your own empty head of beliefs...inside your non existent mind that you have never seen in your life.



.

[TimeSeeker]

You didn't, you don't use English in an understandable way. It's not that difficult.

Which part of 'I have a gripe with logocentrism' was expressed in a non-understandable English?

Difficult or not. I don’t know how to say that in any simpler language that you can understand.

Do you understand what logocentrism is? Do you recognize it within yourself?

[Dontaskme]

Stop crying, I've seen the same understanding that I use, used by many other people. And it has almost nothing to do with your Pseudo-Advaitan need to hurt others.

That you believe that is what I am doing is your own hurting projected at me..swallow your own pain you fool.

But if you insist on projecting your inability to face yor own fears of not-existing as a separate self, then project away, allow me to unburden you of all your sorrow and pain.

I can take it all !!

Please don't cry baby, I'm in big league now.

.

[Atla]

No. Just applied science. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Receiver_ ... acteristic

Scientists too have developed their own, specialised language you know if you want to appeal to science - you might actually have to learn it...

More word salad; changing the context to applied science.

To appeal to the authority of science is to fall straight into dualism! Science experiments are minds (scientist) examining the bodies of other minds (test subjects)!

To resolve dualism using the scientific method you need to perform the experiment ON YOURSELF!

More word salad; science doesn't automatically assume dualism. Usually quite the contrary.

Practicing decision-making, living and being from the first-person perspective!

You can't even conceptualize "learning" without having a conception of your own mind.
For you need to have a conception of how your thought process is flawed (is), and how your thought process can be fixed (ought) and what to change in order to fix it.

Introspection and self-correction requires multiple conceptions of your own mind! Past and future.

More word salad; switching the context from nondualism to practicing decision-making.

And many people conceptualize "learning" without having a conception of their own mind, yes it tends to be highly inaccurate.

Introspection and self-correction are nice and all; all of which has little to nothing to do with what I wrote.

[Atla]

You didn't, you don't use English in an understandable way. It's not that difficult.

Which part of 'I have a gripe with logocentrism' was expressed in a non-understandable English?

Difficult or not. I don’t know how to say that in any simpler language that you can understand.

Do you understand what logocentrism is? Do you recognize it within yourself?

Strawman; logocentrism and some kind of Platonic ideal is just bad philosophy, not all of philosophy.

[Atla]

Stop crying, I've seen the same understanding that I use, used by many other people. And it has almost nothing to do with your Pseudo-Advaitan need to hurt others.

That you believe that is what I am doing is your own hurting projected at me..swallow your own pain you fool.

But if you insist on projecting your inability to face yor own fears of not-existing as a separate self, then project away, allow me to unburden you of all your sorrow and pain.

I can take it all !!

Please don't cry baby, I'm in big league now.

.

That's what you are doing, you enjoyed hurting your family members and others around you by one-upping them saying they don't exist, you don't exist, they don't have a mother etc. You are abusive, all because you are too weak to properly handle the non-existence of the separate self.

[TimeSeeker]

More word salad; changing the context to applied science.

Well, I was willing to take ownership of me explaining poorly, but unfortunately I don't know how to dumb this down any further. Sorry.

I never left that context. Applied science is epistemology. Epistemology is knowledge. If philosophy is love of wisdom, then I guess I am the only real philosopher in this discussion ?

No. This is not 'no true scotsman' fallacy - this is just an assertion.

More word salad; switching the context from nondualism to practicing decision-making.

The word context drops you right into the dualism shit-basket. Reality has no contexts

Introspection and self-correction are nice and all; all of which has little to nothing to do with what I wrote.

Then you are (how shall I put this). Changing context.

Learning, knowledge and self-correction with new evidence is the systematic approach that is colloquially known as science.

[TimeSeeker]

Strawman; logocentrism and some kind of Platonic ideal is just bad philosophy, not all of philosophy.

Then I have no doubt in your very next response to this comment you will be transparent with your OBJECTIVE MORAL STANDARDS for 'good' vs 'bad' philosophy.

Or I shall point out that you are busy committing "Appeal to purity" again. Because THAT would be 'bad philosophy'

[Atla]

Well, I was willing to take ownership of me explaining poorly, but unfortunately I don't know how to dumb this down any further. Sorry.

I never left that context. Applied science is epistemology. Epistemology is knowledge. If philosophy is love of wisdom, then I guess I am the only real philosopher in this discussion ?

No. This is not 'no true scotsman' fallacy - this is just an assertion.

Word salad to the n-th degree. Applied science is not epistemology. Epistemology is not knowledge. You are strawmanning all of philosophy and all of applied science at this point.

The word context drops you right into the dualism shit-basket. Reality has no contexts

Word salad; we can't communicate without some context. Again you shoot yourself in the foot.

Then you are (how shall I put this). Changing context.

Learning, knowledge and self-correction with new evidence is the systematic approach that is colloquially known as science.

Word salad; the topic was philosophy and nondualism. You are strawmanning everything.

[Atla]

Strawman; logocentrism and some kind of Platonic ideal is just bad philosophy, not all of philosophy.

Then I have no doubt in your very next response to this comment you will be transparent with your OBJECTIVE MORAL STANDARDS for 'good' vs 'bad' philosophy.

Or I shall point out that you are busy committing "Appeal to purity" again. Because THAT would be 'bad philosophy'

Word salad; strawman of strawman; there are no objective standards; you don't understand the word morality; and if we never differentiate between better and worse, then there is no point in any communication; again shooting yourself in the foot.

[TimeSeeker]

Word salad to the n-th degree. Applied science is not epistemology. Epistemology is not knowledge. You are strawmanning all of philosophy and all of applied science at this point.

Very good! Then I trust you will correct my misunderstanding, and you will tell me (and everybody watching) what knowledge is?

Word salad; we can't communicate without some context. Again you shoot yourself in the foot.

We have a context. Understanding The Universe.

Word salad; the topic was philosophy and nondualism. You are strawmanning everything.

Yes! That is the topic I am discussing! By calling me out for 'strawman' you are committing ad-hominem and appealing to purity!

[TimeSeeker]

there are no objective standards

Agreed!

you don't understand the word morality

So if there is no OBJECTIVE STANDARDIZED MEANING on the word 'morality' then how did you assert that I misunderstand the word 'morality'?
You ignore the alternative hypothesis: you misunderstand morality.

Do you even care about the law of non-contradiction?