ANEKANTAVADA

[Veritas Aequitas]

Interesting one pointed point of view.

Its a "non one sidedness" thus no 'one-pointed of view.'

The essence of the above is the infinite views of an individual can be reduced to 7 [seven] main views.
Thus there is no problem for a person to hold p and not-p in the same time as true, but not in the same perspective [subject to LNC].

1. You forget that those laws of logic are based upon assertions made by pagans and religious people. Islamic philosophy contributed alot to algebra and logic. They are literally grounded in assumptions.


2. And those 7 views can be reduced to one view as a set of laws which cycle through eachother...still left with one perspective. And the procedure for how they are distilled is not clarified.

3. You can hold P and -P to be true in the same perspective:

((P=P)=(-P=-P)) is required for both P and -P to exist.
But this necessitates that P=-P through the law of identity.
((P=P)=(-P=-P)) is valid, but P=-P is not valid, but P and -P can only exist if and only if they are subject to the laws of identity.
P=P is necessary for P and -P=-P is necessary for -P.
A contradiction in the laws occurs.

You got it wrong from the beginning;

I did not state ((P=P)=(-P=-P)).

I stated;

• View 1 = (P=P) +
  View 2 = (-P=-P) +

I stated and individual can hold both views at the same time in mind but cannot apply them in the same perspective.

I have given the example, a person who know basic Science, will agree diamond and pure charcoal are different in forms in ordinary perception, but they are both the same if we shift perspective on the basis of the periodic table.
Thus the person hold two different views [p and -p] at the same time in his mind but in different perspectives.

[Eodnhoj7]

In this case, Lacewing is right about DAM being wrong.

This is like, being right in explaining why someone's belief 'Santa is real' is wrong.

Right on what account when any localized statement of one reality, as an approximation, is always right and wrong.

DAM's premise, generally speaking, is the intrinsically empty nature of reality and logic.

Your logic grounded in P=P observes this as well where P cycles through a repitition under an undefined "=" equality symbol which effectively means nothing. You have no foundations for even determining what is right, or even wrong, except empty assumptions.

DAM fell in love, is pissed because it failed, but forgot even if it did work out...that romanticism is just an empty illusion that will pass with time anyhow.

As usual you are in the weirdo world.

Says the islamophobe.

What is so problematic with stating, 'Santa is not real' grounded on the highest possible philosophical argument?

He is real as a concept, as a symbol, as an idea, as an advertisement, as a story, as an interpretation, as an old guy collecting money on the streets for charity, as a costume, etc...real is subject to alot of contexts.

Context is absolute.

In any case what is your best philosophical views [you have not justified your ground yet] on the

Are you insisting you have an absolutely-absolute foundation [indisputable] to ground your views?

All is assumption as looping contexts, which are inherently loops in themselves, and exist as intrinsically empty as they are assumptions. All is assumption, and the manifestation of further assumptions results in form. We assume form, and forms are inherently empty as they are assumed.

All assumptions are recursive, hence inherent middles to further assumption.

All assumptions are intrinsically empty of their own nature and exist as points of inversion for further assumptions.

All assumptions are variables.

All assumptions are images.

[Eodnhoj7]

Its a "non one sidedness" thus no 'one-pointed of view.'

The essence of the above is the infinite views of an individual can be reduced to 7 [seven] main views.
Thus there is no problem for a person to hold p and not-p in the same time as true, but not in the same perspective [subject to LNC].

1. You forget that those laws of logic are based upon assertions made by pagans and religious people. Islamic philosophy contributed alot to algebra and logic. They are literally grounded in assumptions.


2. And those 7 views can be reduced to one view as a set of laws which cycle through eachother...still left with one perspective. And the procedure for how they are distilled is not clarified.

3. You can hold P and -P to be true in the same perspective:

((P=P)=(-P=-P)) is required for both P and -P to exist.
But this necessitates that P=-P through the law of identity.
((P=P)=(-P=-P)) is valid, but P=-P is not valid, but P and -P can only exist if and only if they are subject to the laws of identity.
P=P is necessary for P and -P=-P is necessary for -P.
A contradiction in the laws occurs.

You got it wrong from the beginning;

I did not state ((P=P)=(-P=-P)).

But your logic still requires this contradiction, it doesn't matter if it states it or not if you continue then you are eventually bound by it.

I stated;

• View 1 = (P=P) +
  View 2 = (-P=-P) +

I stated and individual can hold both views at the same time in mind but cannot apply them in the same perspective.



I have given the example, a person who know basic Science, will agree diamond and pure charcoal are different in forms in ordinary perception, but they are both the same if we shift perspective on the basis of the periodic table.

And what is ordinary perception considering what is seen, is always in the past due to light waves and is always compare to prior images in the memory.


Thus the person hold two different views [p and -p] at the same time in his mind but in different perspectives.

Actually if I look at both a piece of charcoal and a diamond under a microscope so they both appear as carbon...one can see two different things as the same thing. It is context which differentiates them and context is made up. You can make all the distinctions you want, but you are just going through the same contextual loop of "analysis".

[Veritas Aequitas]

1. You forget that those laws of logic are based upon assertions made by pagans and religious people. Islamic philosophy contributed alot to algebra and logic. They are literally grounded in assumptions.


2. And those 7 views can be reduced to one view as a set of laws which cycle through eachother...still left with one perspective. And the procedure for how they are distilled is not clarified.

3. You can hold P and -P to be true in the same perspective:

((P=P)=(-P=-P)) is required for both P and -P to exist.
But this necessitates that P=-P through the law of identity.
((P=P)=(-P=-P)) is valid, but P=-P is not valid, but P and -P can only exist if and only if they are subject to the laws of identity.
P=P is necessary for P and -P=-P is necessary for -P.
A contradiction in the laws occurs.

You got it wrong from the beginning;

I did not state ((P=P)=(-P=-P)).

But your logic still requires this contradiction, it doesn't matter if it states it or not if you continue then you are eventually bound by it.

Nope.
There is no contradiction as long as we do not insist they are the same within the same perspective. I differentiated the perspective.

I stated;

• View 1 = (P=P) +
  View 2 = (-P=-P) +

I stated and individual can hold both views at the same time in mind but cannot apply them in the same perspective.

I have given the example, a person who know basic Science, will agree diamond and pure charcoal are different in forms in ordinary perception, but they are both the same if we shift perspective on the basis of the periodic table.

And what is ordinary perception considering what is seen, is always in the past due to light waves and is always compare to prior images in the memory.

This is a matter of perspective.
So there is no issue if we qualify the perspective precisely.
Note in one perspective, re MAYA, "all there is" i.e. reality is an illusion is true [P].
But it would be stupid to stick to just this perspective.
Thus we must justify from another perspective P is not true [not-P].

Thus the person hold two different views [p and -p] at the same time in his mind but in different perspectives.

Actually if I look at both a piece of charcoal and a diamond under a microscope so they both appear as carbon...one can see two different things as the same thing. It is context which differentiates them and context is made up. You can make all the distinctions you want, but you are just going through the same contextual loop of "analysis".

Yes it is all about context, i.e. as I had stated 'perspectives'.
Yes, in the above shifted perspective to atom we will see two separate clusters of carbon atoms.
But if we shift to the perspective of energy and waves there is no more distinction on that soup of where the energy, electrons, particles interchange all the time.
If we shift the wave collapse functions, for the original diamond and charcoal, we will perceive things as alternating between as wave and as particle depending on the circumstances.

So the point is empirical reality is all about perspective & context.
There is no looping 'analysis' rather it is within one's consciousness and rationality to shift to the relevant perspective.

What cannot be done and is impossible is for a human individual to insist there are perfect independent things [empirical and others] that are not subjected to the above perspectives.

What the ANEKANTAVADA support is;

• View 1. P
  View 2. Not-P
  View 3-7 ...

Both the above held within a person are valid but perspectival or contextual;.
Thus,

• View 1. God exists as real.
  View 2. God do not exists as real

I can agree both the above a valid by themselves but we have to qualify the perspective or context.

View 1. God exists are real is conditioned upon the psychological.
View 2. God can not exists as real within sensibility + rationality + philosophically.

The above premises need to be supported by detail justifications [has done in other threads].

[Dontaskme]

"Each one of you is absolutely right." ~ Tagore


___

ANEKANTAVADA: The Jain Version of Multiple World Views
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bKfB3fe ... dex=7&t=0s

In the ancient religion of Jainism, there is a beautiful concept of Anekantavada (literally, "non one sidedness") which allows for multiple points of view.



.

Interesting one pointed point of view.

All points of view are a one pointed view.

How do I get to the other side-you are the other side. Can't have a one-sided coin. Two sides of the same coin yet never the twain shall meet.

Objectifying what I am as a subjective entity is making a self of what I am. As soon as this concept becomes a reflex action (usually very early in life) I am in bondage to that concept.

.

[Dontaskme]

This is like, being right in explaining why someone's belief 'Santa is real' is wrong.

Santa exists as a conceptual imagined thing aka a belief.

That goes for every other conceptually created idea, aka a conceptually imagined believed thing.

What is an idea? I've no idea.

In reality, no ''thing'' is never seen - ''things'' are only KNOWN conceptually as they are conceived perceptually, aka imagined in no thing.

What is wrong, is right, and what is right, is wrong. Any difference defaults to zero...aka the non-conceptual /nondual reality.

What is real is unreal, what is unreal is real.


"There you are. Enlightenment! Sure seems simple. Just need to find the damn eraser."

--If you found the eraser what would you erase? The eraser is the erased!!

.

[Dontaskme]

The above premises need to be supported by detail justifications [has done in other threads].

In my absence as 'me', 'you' are present as I.

Anyone can say it.

We all say I

I is one and one is I

Losing one's 'self' in what is Here is finding that 'Here" is what one is.

No more justification needed. The devil is in the details.

.

[Dontaskme]

View 1. God exists are real is conditioned upon the psychological.
View 2. God can not exists as real within sensibility + rationality + philosophically.

Human psychology is a fictional belief. The story of I
*sensibility + rationality + philosophically* can only pertain to *human psychology* the fictional belief within I aka within the dream of illusory separation.

________

["Perceptions employed as a base for building up positive concepts are the origin of all ignorance. Apperceiving that there is nothing to perceive is deliverance."

"When all relativities are seen as non-existent nothing remains to be apperceived"

Note: apperception = intuitive not intellectual, kind of like "grokking fullness" in the book "Stranger in a Strange Land" by Robert Heinlein.]

[Eodnhoj7]

1. You forget that those laws of logic are based upon assertions made by pagans and religious people. Islamic philosophy contributed alot to algebra and logic. They are literally grounded in assumptions.


2. And those 7 views can be reduced to one view as a set of laws which cycle through eachother...still left with one perspective. And the procedure for how they are distilled is not clarified.

3. You can hold P and -P to be true in the same perspective:

((P=P)=(-P=-P)) is required for both P and -P to exist.
But this necessitates that P=-P through the law of identity.
((P=P)=(-P=-P)) is valid, but P=-P is not valid, but P and -P can only exist if and only if they are subject to the laws of identity.
P=P is necessary for P and -P=-P is necessary for -P.
A contradiction in the laws occurs.

You got it wrong from the beginning;

I did not state ((P=P)=(-P=-P)).

But your logic still requires this contradiction, it doesn't matter if it states it or not if you continue then you are eventually bound by it.

Nope.
There is no contradiction as long as we do not insist they are the same within the same perspective. I differentiated the perspective.

I stated;

• View 1 = (P=P) +
  View 2 = (-P=-P) +

I stated and individual can hold both views at the same time in mind but cannot apply them in the same perspective.

I have given the example, a person who know basic Science, will agree diamond and pure charcoal are different in forms in ordinary perception, but they are both the same if we shift perspective on the basis of the periodic table.

And what is ordinary perception considering what is seen, is always in the past due to light waves and is always compare to prior images in the memory.

This is a matter of perspective.
So there is no issue if we qualify the perspective precisely.
Note in one perspective, re MAYA, "all there is" i.e. reality is an illusion is true [P].
But it would be stupid to stick to just this perspective.
Thus we must justify from another perspective P is not true [not-P].

Thus the person hold two different views [p and -p] at the same time in his mind but in different perspectives.

Actually if I look at both a piece of charcoal and a diamond under a microscope so they both appear as carbon...one can see two different things as the same thing. It is context which differentiates them and context is made up. You can make all the distinctions you want, but you are just going through the same contextual loop of "analysis".

Yes it is all about context, i.e. as I had stated 'perspectives'.
Yes, in the above shifted perspective to atom we will see two separate clusters of carbon atoms.
But if we shift to the perspective of energy and waves there is no more distinction on that soup of where the energy, electrons, particles interchange all the time.
If we shift the wave collapse functions, for the original diamond and charcoal, we will perceive things as alternating between as wave and as particle depending on the circumstances.

So the point is empirical reality is all about perspective & context.
There is no looping 'analysis' rather it is within one's consciousness and rationality to shift to the relevant perspective.

What cannot be done and is impossible is for a human individual to insist there are perfect independent things [empirical and others] that are not subjected to the above perspectives.

What the ANEKANTAVADA support is;

• View 1. P
  View 2. Not-P
  View 3-7 ...

Both the above held within a person are valid but perspectival or contextual;.
Thus,

• View 1. God exists as real.
  View 2. God do not exists as real

I can agree both the above a valid by themselves but we have to qualify the perspective or context.

View 1. God exists are real is conditioned upon the psychological.
View 2. God can not exists as real within sensibility + rationality + philosophically.

The above premises need to be supported by detail justifications [has done in other threads].

A carbon molecule can be both a diamond and charcoal under the same perspective when the context of a microscope is introduced, or even reason.

Empirical reality is dependent upon movement, this movement requires various loops ranging from atomic movement to the stars, to reproduction to the various cycles within the body and the mirror neurons responsible for this statement. All of these are loops, and variations of them. The loop exists, through rhythm under a variety of phenomenon. But the irony is that none of this empirical in the full sense of the word, you never see the culmination of all these movements at one moment unless to compare it to actual memory.

This ratio of one memory to another, is focused in the same portion of the brain responsible for imagination. The same event, observed by different people, is not only observed in different ways due to different imaginations but changes in time with the imagination.

Imagination is literally, according to science, the foundation for science. Even the scientific method, where an event is provided only one assume explanation, requires at its root an "imaginary" interpretation. It is all made up perspectives.

[Veritas Aequitas]

A carbon molecule can be both a diamond and charcoal under the same perspective when the context of a microscope is introduced, or even reason.

No issue with that.

Empirical reality is dependent upon movement, this movement requires various loops ranging from atomic movement to the stars, to reproduction to the various cycles within the body and the mirror neurons responsible for this statement. All of these are loops, and variations of them. The loop exists, through rhythm under a variety of phenomenon. But the irony is that none of this empirical in the full sense of the word, you never see the culmination of all these movements at one moment unless to compare it to actual memory.

One of the condition of empirical reality is movement which is obvious since the only constant is change.
The above obvious fact is not significant to the ANEKANTAVADA along the line of our discussion.

This ratio of one memory to another, is focused in the same portion of the brain responsible for imagination. The same event, observed by different people, is not only observed in different ways due to different imaginations but changes in time with the imagination.

Imagination is literally, according to science, the foundation for science. Even the scientific method, where an event is provided only one assume explanation, requires at its root an "imaginary" interpretation. It is all made up perspectives.

Imagination is merely one contribution to Science.
There is no Science without the contribution of reason.
What determine what is objective scientific theory is intersubjective consensus of the qualified peers.

Your is another case autism? i.e. unable to get on topic and forever going in your unjustified directions.

[Veritas Aequitas]

The above premises need to be supported by detail justifications [has done in other threads].

In my absence as 'me', 'you' are present as I.

Anyone can say it.

We all say I

I is one and one is I

Losing one's 'self' in what is Here is finding that 'Here" is what one is.

No more justification needed. The devil is in the details.

.

As I had often advised,
consult a psychiatrist and bring along the above plus all the other postings of you re no-I, no-me, losing one's self, etc.

[Eodnhoj7]

A carbon molecule can be both a diamond and charcoal under the same perspective when the context of a microscope is introduced, or even reason.

No issue with that.

Empirical reality is dependent upon movement, this movement requires various loops ranging from atomic movement to the stars, to reproduction to the various cycles within the body and the mirror neurons responsible for this statement. All of these are loops, and variations of them. The loop exists, through rhythm under a variety of phenomenon. But the irony is that none of this empirical in the full sense of the word, you never see the culmination of all these movements at one moment unless to compare it to actual memory.

One of the condition of empirical reality is movement which is obvious since the only constant is change.
The above obvious fact is not significant to the ANEKANTAVADA along the line of our discussion.

This ratio of one memory to another, is focused in the same portion of the brain responsible for imagination. The same event, observed by different people, is not only observed in different ways due to different imaginations but changes in time with the imagination.

Imagination is literally, according to science, the foundation for science. Even the scientific method, where an event is provided only one assume explanation, requires at its root an "imaginary" interpretation. It is all made up perspectives.

Imagination is merely one contribution to Science.
There is no Science without the contribution of reason.
What determine what is objective scientific theory is intersubjective consensus of the qualified peers.

Your is another case autism? i.e. unable to get on topic and forever going in your unjustified directions.

Science is an imagined methodology.

[Dontaskme]

As I had often advised,
consult a psychiatrist and bring along the above plus all the other postings of you re no-I, no-me, losing one's self, etc.

There is an I but I doesn't belong to any THING - except within the dream of separation/imagination.

I don't need to consult and pay hard earned money to a psychiatrist just to tell me what I already know.

How many times do you want me to repeat that to you?

A: Probably as many times as you repeat your broken record back to me.

Can't you just accept that I choose to discuss from the premise of no personal I ?

Soon enough the whole population of the planet will be speaking and understanding the nondual nature of the I... that is if they haven't gone extinct.

.

[Veritas Aequitas]

As I had often advised,
consult a psychiatrist and bring along the above plus all the other postings of you re no-I, no-me, losing one's self, etc.

There is an I but I doesn't belong to any THING - except within the dream of separation/imagination.

I don't need to consult and pay hard earned money to a psychiatrist just to tell me what I already know.

How many times do you want me to repeat that to you?

A: Probably as many times as you repeat your broken record back to me.

Can't you just accept that I choose to discuss from the premise of no personal I ?

Soon enough the whole population of the planet will be speaking and understanding the nondual nature of the I... that is if they haven't gone extinct.

Janism is older than Buddhism and the fundamental of the ANEKANTAVADA do recognize the non-dual-I but do not take it as absolute as you do.
Buddhism is influenced by Jainism and it take the same stance re the non-dual-I but do not take it as absolute as you do.
Both Jainism and Buddhism take the Middle-Way.

Only those with some psychiatric issues will take the non-dual-I as absolute and keep insisting the non-I is absolute.
This is reflected with the high emotional intensity those in the non-dual camps cling to their beliefs re the non-dual.

[Veritas Aequitas]

A carbon molecule can be both a diamond and charcoal under the same perspective when the context of a microscope is introduced, or even reason.

No issue with that.

Empirical reality is dependent upon movement, this movement requires various loops ranging from atomic movement to the stars, to reproduction to the various cycles within the body and the mirror neurons responsible for this statement. All of these are loops, and variations of them. The loop exists, through rhythm under a variety of phenomenon. But the irony is that none of this empirical in the full sense of the word, you never see the culmination of all these movements at one moment unless to compare it to actual memory.

One of the condition of empirical reality is movement which is obvious since the only constant is change.
The above obvious fact is not significant to the ANEKANTAVADA along the line of our discussion.

This ratio of one memory to another, is focused in the same portion of the brain responsible for imagination. The same event, observed by different people, is not only observed in different ways due to different imaginations but changes in time with the imagination.

Imagination is literally, according to science, the foundation for science. Even the scientific method, where an event is provided only one assume explanation, requires at its root an "imaginary" interpretation. It is all made up perspectives.

Imagination is merely one contribution to Science.
There is no Science without the contribution of reason.
What determine what is objective scientific theory is intersubjective consensus of the qualified peers.

Your is another case autism? i.e. unable to get on topic and forever going in your unjustified directions.

Science is an imagined methodology.

According to Popper, scientific theories are at best polished conjectures.
But whatever you say of Science, i.e. imagined or conjectures, what it can assured is its scientific theories can be tested and confirmed to be consistent by anyone. Where there is inconsistencies, then by its principles the theory will be rejected or modified to whatever can be justified.

In the case of your so-called theory, you have not justified it for me to test.
You have not shown and demonstrated it is feasible to be tested for confirmation.