Are all models wrong?

Known unknowns and unknown unknowns!

Moderators: AMod, iMod

AlexW
Posts: 691
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:53 am

Re: Are all models wrong?

Post by AlexW »

seeds wrote: Mon Feb 24, 2020 9:33 pm I suggest that the thing that is being hidden from us is that of the truth of our ultimate form and eternal destiny.

And to understand why it is being hidden, please read the post I wrote in an alternate thread titled, “Einstein and the Cosmic Man.”
OK, I've read it, but what you are proposing is that there is some personal/individual essence - a soul, or some eternal form - that will survive physical death and then enter some kind of heaven.

Nondualism has none of that - all form is ultimately empty - there is no body or separate soul in existence that could survive physical death in the first place. Thus there is also no personal afterlife, no heaven where we will meet our ancestors.
But yes, sure, if one strongly believes that this earthly existence is hell and that heaven is beyond (after death) then your scenario might be possible (things like that have happened before... see some strange sects where members committed mass suicide) - but non dualism states that there is only the here and now... and you are already here, now - always. There is no doorway to a transcendental place - besides the gateless gate, which is not a gate at all, but much rather the realisation that I am not this personal self, but pure consciousness / ultimate reality.

Thus, as I see it, your “Trans-dimensional Sliding Glass Patio Door” only works for dualists (for people who believe in the separate and independent existence of things - including their own personal self/soul).

The nondualist is already "dead" - but at the same time more alive than any limited body/mind could ever be.
seeds
Posts: 1006
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Are all models wrong?

Post by seeds »

seeds wrote: Mon Feb 24, 2020 9:33 pm When it comes to nondualism, I cannot think of a more useless and counterintuitive concept for humans to adopt and take seriously.

I mean, what exactly is it about nondualism that appeals to you?

Furthermore (and more importantly), what does it say about our eternal destiny?
AlexW wrote: Mon Feb 24, 2020 10:40 pm Yes, sure, in a way you are correct - if one believes in the supremacy of the human species, in the importance of our destiny, of being taken seriously, of making the world a better place and whatever other idea might be in peoples' minds, then nondualism is pretty much the least appealing concept.
I’m not sure if that’s the best way to advertise the value of your wares. You start out by naming several of the features of life that humans hold dear and then you tell them that nondualism represents the antithesis of what they hope and believe is true.

You might want to avoid any occupation involving sales. :D
AlexW wrote: Mon Feb 24, 2020 10:40 pm But if one is out to unearth truth no matter the "cost"...
“Unearthing” something implies digging.

There are humans who have wasted their entire life on this planet digging for treasure in the wrong place, only to unearth fool’s gold.
AlexW wrote: Mon Feb 24, 2020 10:40 pm ...inquiry into ones existence (which, to me, is based on direct experience and only secondary on thought about this experience) will eventually lead you to the understanding that whatever we have been thinking up is actually not what is being directly experienced - it is, in an unusually strange way, pretty much exactly the opposite of what we think it is.
Now... this realisation leads to a new understanding,...
If the “new understanding” you are referring to has anything to do with your implying that human life is basically meaningless and has no ultimate and eternal purpose (at least not for the individual), then there is absolutely nothing new about that. It’s called existential nihilism...

...(though I'm sure you knew that already, for it is obvious that you embrace it).
AlexW wrote: Mon Feb 24, 2020 10:40 pm See the Gospel of Thomas [77]:
Jesus says: "I am the light which is on them all. I am the All, and the All has gone out from me and the All has come back to me. Cleave the wood: I am there; lift the stone and thou shalt find me there!"
That's a pretty good example of God imparting information to us through Jesus, but I'm afraid it might not support your argument in the way you think it does.

Because if it is at all possible that a Panentheistic/Berkeleyan form of idealism might be true (my personal preference), then the entire universe is the living mind of God. And as such, it would indeed be true that if we “cleave the wood” and “lift the stone” we will find God there.

Why?

Because there is literally nothing that you can see, touch, hear, smell, or taste within this universe (not even your own body and brain) that is not part of the mental fabric of God’s very being (hence the notion of God being “omnipresent”).

However, that does not mean that God’s central point of awareness (his “I Am-ness”) is omnipresent. For I suggest that just as we humans cannot be directly aware of every single thought in our minds “all-at-once,” likewise, neither can God.

Btw, Jesus also said: “In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.”

Somehow, that just doesn’t sound like a person who would endorse your hardcore form of nondualism/nihilism/oblivion. In which case, I am at a loss as to why you would use him as a supportive source for your theory.

(Continued in next post)
_______
seeds
Posts: 1006
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Are all models wrong?

Post by seeds »

_______

(Continued from prior post)
seeds wrote: Mon Feb 24, 2020 9:33 pm I suggest that the thing that is being hidden from us is that of the truth of our ultimate form and eternal destiny.

And to understand why it is being hidden, please read the post I wrote in an alternate thread titled, “Einstein and the Cosmic Man.”
AlexW wrote: Mon Feb 24, 2020 11:12 pm OK, I've read it, but what you are proposing is that there is some personal/individual essence - a soul, or some eternal form - that will survive physical death and then enter some kind of heaven.

Nondualism has none of that - all form is ultimately empty - there is no body or separate soul in existence that could survive physical death in the first place. Thus there is also no personal afterlife, no heaven where we will meet our ancestors.
And I suppose you’re going to tell us that you have “direct experience” of the irrefutable veracity of your statements? - That through “direct experience” you have personally witnessed the absolute and utter oblivion that awaits us following death?

Perhaps in addition to avoiding any sort of occupation involving sales, you might also want to avoid offering your opinion to anyone on their deathbed, or any circumstances where a mother could use some comforting words after losing a child, just to name a few.
AlexW wrote: Mon Feb 24, 2020 11:12 pm But yes, sure, if one strongly believes that this earthly existence is hell and that heaven is beyond (after death) then your scenario might be possible...
Did you not understand the ultimate point of my little thought experiment?

I didn’t say that earth is hell. The suggestion was that the transcendent context of reality that awaits us is so wonderful that it could make our present context “seem” like hell in comparison.

Which is why it must be kept hidden from us so as not to make us long for it, or seek it out prematurely.

And just to be clear here, I suggest that any form of an actual hell as portrayed in the various religions is mythological nonsense. I simply like to use a lot of verbal and visual metaphors in my replies.
AlexW wrote: Mon Feb 24, 2020 11:12 pm ...as I see it, your “Trans-dimensional Sliding Glass Patio Door” only works for dualists (for people who believe in the separate and independent existence of things - including their own personal self/soul)
Do you mean dualists like Jesus? – the one whose words you used in an erroneous assumption that they (and he) support your argument for nondualism?

Btw, I’m still waiting to hear about what your moments of “direct experience” revealed to you about this issue:
seeds wrote: Mon Feb 24, 2020 9:33 pm ...how about the gargantuan (carpet soiling) elephant that stands in the middle of nondualism’s living room concerning who or what created the unfathomable order of the billions of galaxies of the universe?
_______
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 8547
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: Are all models wrong?

Post by Dontaskme »

Alex wrote: Tue Feb 25, 2020 6:49 am


The nondualist is already "dead" - but at the same time more alive than any limited body/mind could ever be.
Very well said, thank you Alex.

.
AlexW
Posts: 691
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:53 am

Re: Are all models wrong?

Post by AlexW »

seeds wrote: Tue Feb 25, 2020 6:49 am I’m not sure if that’s the best way to advertise the value of your wares.
No... I am pretty sure you are right :-)
But it might be interesting for some - if only a few - and that's good enough.
seeds wrote: Tue Feb 25, 2020 6:49 am “Unearthing” something implies digging.

There are humans who have wasted their entire life on this planet digging for treasure in the wrong place, only to unearth fool’s gold.
Do you really want me to answer that?
seeds wrote: Tue Feb 25, 2020 6:49 am If the “new understanding” you are referring to has anything to do with your implying that human life is basically meaningless and has no ultimate and eternal purpose (at least not for the individual), then there is absolutely nothing new about that. It’s called existential nihilism...
You should look at both sides of the coin - not only at the one you dislike.
seeds wrote: Tue Feb 25, 2020 6:49 am That's a pretty good example of God imparting information to us through Jesus, but I'm afraid it might not support your argument in the way you think it does.
Everyone sees a different meaning in words - that's the nature of language - if our ideas don't match... thats fine.
seeds wrote: Tue Feb 25, 2020 6:49 am Because there is literally nothing that you can see, touch, hear, smell, or taste within this universe (not even your own body and brain) that is not part of the mental fabric of God’s very being (hence the notion of God being “omnipresent”).
Ok
seeds wrote: Tue Feb 25, 2020 6:49 am However, that does not mean that God’s central point of awareness (his “I Am-ness”) is omnipresent. For I suggest that just as we humans cannot be directly aware of every single thought in our minds “all-at-once,” likewise, neither can God.
There is no central point, or any other point, of awareness. In "God"/awareness there are no separate points.
There is no being aware OF - there is ONLY awareness. This might sound strange to the dualistic mind, but once separation has vanished there is no center, no human being aware of a certain perspective, there is just omnipresence (but to the conceptual mind this will still "look like" a limited part of the world). Not sure you will understand that... its just an attempt to describe the direct experience of no separation.
seeds wrote: Tue Feb 25, 2020 6:49 am Somehow, that just doesn’t sound like a person who would endorse your hardcore form of nondualism/nihilism/oblivion. In which case, I am at a loss as to why you would use him as a supportive source for your theory.
When someone who understands a certain topic tries to impart knowledge he/she attempts to speak on the level of the receiver.

And again, I am not here to endorse anything - if you are not interested, don't ask questions.
Last edited by AlexW on Tue Feb 25, 2020 10:12 am, edited 1 time in total.
AlexW
Posts: 691
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:53 am

Re: Are all models wrong?

Post by AlexW »

seeds wrote: Tue Feb 25, 2020 6:50 am That through “direct experience” you have personally witnessed the absolute and utter oblivion that awaits us following death?
"I" haven't witnessed anything.
seeds wrote: Tue Feb 25, 2020 6:50 am Perhaps in addition to avoiding any sort of occupation involving sales, you might also want to avoid offering your opinion to anyone on their deathbed, or any circumstances where a mother could use some comforting words after losing a child, just to name a few.
Thank you :-) sounds like good advice.
seeds wrote: Tue Feb 25, 2020 6:50 am Did you not understand the ultimate point of my little thought experiment?

I didn’t say that earth is hell. The suggestion was that the transcendent context of reality that awaits us is so wonderful that it could make our present context “seem” like hell in comparison.
I see... now thats a huge difference!
It "seems like hell", but it is not hell - well... good that we have all been to "real hell" so we know the difference.
seeds wrote: Tue Feb 25, 2020 6:50 am Which is why it must be kept hidden from us so as not to make us long for it, or seek it out prematurely.
Nice conspiracy theory you have invented there.
seeds wrote: Tue Feb 25, 2020 6:50 am Btw, I’m still waiting to hear about what your moments of “direct experience” revealed to you about this issue:

...how about the gargantuan (carpet soiling) elephant that stands in the middle of nondualism’s living room concerning who or what created the unfathomable order of the billions of galaxies of the universe?
I haven't had a direct experience of any such gargantuan (carpet soiling) elephant - but I have tasted an orange.
AlexW
Posts: 691
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:53 am

Re: Are all models wrong?

Post by AlexW »

Dontaskme wrote: Tue Feb 25, 2020 8:28 am Very well said
Thank you DAM :-)
uwot
Posts: 5031
Joined: Mon Jul 23, 2012 7:21 am

Re: Are all models wrong?

Post by uwot »

AlexW wrote: Fri Feb 21, 2020 1:34 am
uwot wrote: Thu Feb 20, 2020 10:30 am I don't think that follows. I remember stuff from before I had much in the way of concepts or language, and a lot of my memories are what you would call direct experience.
Yes, sure, these memories exist, but that these memories are "my mums face" or "my brown and white dog Lucky" are interpretations that have been added on later. The initial "memory" is not more than a snapshot of a more or less random/meaningless configuration of colours, sounds, tastes...
Direct experience in other words, but a unique configuration and a unique interpretation; two different things, which kinda chips away at non-dualism. However seamlessly they blend into any other reality, there is one example I know of, me, that simply doesn't have access to more than one configuration or interpretation of direct experience.
AlexW wrote: Fri Feb 21, 2020 1:34 amYou simply do things without constantly thinking about it, without the internal commentary/monologue (which is pretty much useless 99% of the time).
This strikes me as odd. Do you imagine that non non-dualists are articulating every action they perform?
AlexW wrote: Fri Feb 21, 2020 1:34 am
uwot wrote: Thu Feb 20, 2020 10:30 am Not if you believe that "apples exist as a concept, but not as a separate, independently existing thing."
Well... maybe I have misinterpreted your statement:
"Having investigated, rigorously and at length, I do not 'believe' that apples exist. I think it is a perfectly functional working hypothesis"

To me, this sounded like you understand that things are never directly experienced by a separate entity (you), but that the conventional belief in things being experienced by a separate subjective self is not more than a "handy" way of interpreting experience - especially when there is a the need for language based communication.
My point is that it might be true.
AlexW wrote: Fri Feb 21, 2020 1:34 am
uwot wrote: Thu Feb 20, 2020 10:30 am No. 'Apples exist' is one model, 'No they don't' is another. I don't think we have proven either of those wrong. Perhaps we simply have different concepts of 'model'.
But this is not about just the one model: "Apples exist" being right or wrong - its about models in general.
Right, but any model that is not contradicted by direct experience could be true.
AlexW wrote: Fri Feb 21, 2020 1:34 amThus I said previously:
All models are neither right nor wrong. They are simply an interpretation, and these interpretations are right or wrong only within a certain, specific conceptual framework. Once the framework changes the model will have to change or it will become invalidated (based on the new framework).
Yer kinda fumbling with Kuhn's 'paradigms'. It doesn't really matter whether models are right or wrong, provided they serve some positive function. I gather your non-dualism enables you to switch off some internal dialogue and makes you less egotistical. Probably a good thing, but it doesn't follow that non-dualism is therefore true.
AlexW wrote: Fri Feb 21, 2020 1:34 amAt the end, a model will only be as good as its basic foundation - it cannot (or rather should not) be used to state absolute truths if these truths are not already present in the foundation. Yes, a model can introduce new, relative truths, but just as the relative is a child of the absolute (and not the other way round) so is the model (thought) a child of direct experience.
Well the question is are all models wrong? I have said several times that I fully accept that models are interpretations of direct experience. That includes your own non-dual interpretation. This might help you understand why I think it is important not to commit to any one interpretation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NM-zWTU7X-k
AlexW
Posts: 691
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:53 am

Re: Are all models wrong?

Post by AlexW »

uwot wrote: Wed Feb 26, 2020 12:52 pm there is one example I know of, me, that simply doesn't have access to more than one configuration or interpretation of direct experience.
Really?
Have you never considered more than one possible interpretation of a direct experience?
I would be very surprised if you hadn't...
uwot wrote: Wed Feb 26, 2020 12:52 pm This strikes me as odd. Do you imagine that non non-dualists are articulating every action they perform?
No, of course not. It's not about "articulating every action", its rather about where ones "aware presence" is directed/focussed at.
Non-dualist or not, conceptual understanding alone doesn't make the slightest difference to real presence - meaning: if one is "awake" or "asleep".
Asleep meaning: being caught in thought world most of the time (and believing that the "I" that is popping up as thought, within this world, is actually what you are)
Awake meaning: being present as awareness itself (being aware OF thought - as well as the rest of experience -, rather than being swept away by it)
uwot wrote: Wed Feb 26, 2020 12:52 pm Right, but any model that is not contradicted by direct experience could be true.
Sure - can you think of another one besides nonduality?
uwot wrote: Wed Feb 26, 2020 12:52 pm It doesn't really matter whether models are right or wrong, provided they serve some positive function.
Agree - but does our conventionally accepted model serve more positive functions than negative ones? Does it help to believe that I am a lonely island in an ocean full of adversaries?
uwot wrote: Wed Feb 26, 2020 12:52 pm I gather your non-dualism enables you to switch off some internal dialogue and makes you less egotistical.
No... its not my non-dualism that does any of that. A model or understanding cannot do anything real. What it can do is change your ideas, your priorities - it might make it more important to you to simply be here, now, rather than getting lost in thought world (which seems to be the default state for 99.99% of humanity) - and the more one is consciously here/now the more it will be the new normal (to wake up you have to be awake - sounds strange, but its true).
Its like learning to ride a bike - you cant just think yourself to success - first you need the desire to learn, but then, ultimately, you have to do it.
uwot wrote: Wed Feb 26, 2020 12:52 pm Probably a good thing, but it doesn't follow that non-dualism is therefore true.
Agree, it doesn't follow. Like any other idea/belief, non dualism is also just a model - at the end its about living it, not about thinking it.
uwot wrote: Wed Feb 26, 2020 12:52 pm Well the question is are all models wrong? I have said several times that I fully accept that models are interpretations of direct experience. That includes your own non-dual interpretation. This might help you understand why I think it is important not to commit to any one interpretation
Well.. to me, ultimately a model is neither right nor is it wrong (wait... have I said that before... :-) ) - but yes, also "my own non-dual interpretation" is a model and thus I am not insisting that it is right. It is simply as close a dualistic interpretation to direct experience as I can imagine, but again, a model without putting it into action is pretty much useless - not more than a game of thought ping pong.

I'll have a look at this video now and comment in a separate post...
Skepdick
Posts: 5030
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2019 11:16 am

Re: Are all models wrong?

Post by Skepdick »

uwot wrote: Wed Feb 26, 2020 12:52 pm Yer kinda fumbling with Kuhn's 'paradigms'. It doesn't really matter whether models are right or wrong, provided they serve some positive function. I gather your non-dualism enables you to switch off some internal dialogue and makes you less egotistical. Probably a good thing, but it doesn't follow that non-dualism is therefore true.
What follows is that if you switch off the "I" (that which interprets) and you replace it with your best understanding of "your interlocutor", then you can "see things their way".

Letting go of the "I" - letting go of controlling the narrative is the mechanics of empathy/perspectivism. It is an integral part of communication.

It's also how you spot people who can't communicate - they can't let go of their language, because their private language is also their public language.

They "speak their mind" as they say, because it's all they can speak.
Last edited by Skepdick on Thu Feb 27, 2020 10:43 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 8547
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: Are all models wrong?

Post by Dontaskme »

uwot wrote: Wed Feb 26, 2020 12:52 pmI gather your non-dualism enables you to switch off some internal dialogue and makes you less egotistical. Probably a good thing, but it doesn't follow that non-dualism is therefore true.
Internal dialog is the manifestation of ideas inform, when there is attention to 'thought'
And where attention goes energy flows.

In reality the observer is ''Resting Light'' aka Pure Awareness without an object in mind.

Only the mind moves, Not Awareness.

As for attention to 'thought' two observers can experience different conflicting realities and both are correct because the observer in 'me' is the same observer in 'you'

The apparent split between my observation and your observation is a ''thought'' that is known conceptually by the only knowing there is which is Awareness...that has NEVER been SEEN as an actual objective thing in an of itself, rather, any attention to ''thought'' is a kin to the 'dream state' in which no ''thing'' is real, unreal, right or wrong. The 'waking dream' seen in realtime happenstance experience, is an appearance of the exact same LIGHT that experiences the ''night time'' dream events.

This knowledge has come from my own personal 'direct experience' by the way, I'm not saying or expecting any other one to believe this, it's just how it is seen and known from this one here.

.
AlexW
Posts: 691
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:53 am

Re: Are all models wrong?

Post by AlexW »

uwot wrote: Wed Feb 26, 2020 12:52 pm This might help you understand why I think it is important not to commit to any one interpretation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NM-zWTU7X-k
Ok... have watched it...

I think the big difference between theories aiming at describing something/reality, to a model that actually doesn't describe, but rather attempts to destroy the description itself (or rather: make one realise that the description is nothing more than a conventionally agreed upon "illusion") ultimately points into a very different direction than any other model could - it actually points to life/reality itself.

Model A-Y: Any dualistic/relativistic/objective model always points into the same direction --> deeper inside of the mind, to more and more structures of thought.
Model Z: The non dualistic model ultimately points away from the mind, away from descriptive/conceptual structures of thought. It is not result driven, it doesn't aim for an outcome where new conceptual understanding is generated, but rather at direct experience itself.

But yes as long as a model (including Model Z) is only a mental exercise it is not different to models A-Y -- the model has to become lived reality to make a difference.
seeds
Posts: 1006
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2016 9:31 pm

Re: Are all models wrong?

Post by seeds »

seeds wrote: Tue Feb 25, 2020 6:49 am “Unearthing” something implies digging.

There are humans who have wasted their entire life on this planet digging for treasure in the wrong place, only to unearth fool’s gold.
AlexW wrote: Tue Feb 25, 2020 9:59 am Do you really want me to answer that?
It wasn’t a question. But you are certainly free to respond to, or ignore, anything you wish.
AlexW wrote: Tue Feb 25, 2020 9:59 am You should look at both sides of the coin - not only at the one you dislike.
What in the world do you think I’ve been doing here if not looking at both sides of a coin – a coin where one side represents dualism and the other nondualism?

You are of course correct to point out that I don’t like your brand of hardcore nondualism. However, to suggest that I haven’t been looking at both sides of the coin is nonsense.
seeds wrote: Tue Feb 25, 2020 6:49 am That's a pretty good example of God imparting information to us through Jesus, but I'm afraid it might not support your argument in the way you think it does.
AlexW wrote: Tue Feb 25, 2020 9:59 am Everyone sees a different meaning in words - that's the nature of language - if our ideas don't match... thats fine.
That’s very true. But when we cherry-pick a tiny fragment of someone else’s words (Jesus, for example) to support our argument, and then it is pointed out to us that the vast majority of their other words stand in stark contrast to the meaning we have derived from the tiny fragment, then we need to reevaluate our interpretation of the fragment. We need to be honest and admit that it may not mean what we think it means (at least not from the perspective of the one who originally stated the words).
seeds wrote: Tue Feb 25, 2020 6:49 am Btw, Jesus also said: “In my Father's house are many mansions: if it were not so, I would have told you. I go to prepare a place for you.”

Somehow, that just doesn’t sound like a person who would endorse your hardcore form of nondualism/nihilism/oblivion. In which case, I am at a loss as to why you would use him as a supportive source for your theory.
AlexW wrote: Tue Feb 25, 2020 9:59 am ...I am not here to endorse anything
Well, first of all, I wasn’t referring to you, I was referring to Jesus.

And secondly...

Really? You’re not endorsing...

(promoting, pushing, peddling, sanctioning, trying to sell)

...the concept of nondualism?

I think your words suggest otherwise.
seeds wrote: Tue Feb 25, 2020 6:50 am Btw, I’m still waiting to hear about what your moments of “direct experience” revealed to you about this issue:

...how about the gargantuan (carpet soiling) elephant that stands in the middle of nondualism’s living room concerning who or what created the unfathomable order of the billions of galaxies of the universe?
AlexW wrote: Tue Feb 25, 2020 10:12 am I haven't had a direct experience of any such gargantuan (carpet soiling) elephant...
My point exactly.

In order to preserve your belief system, you have completely ignored one of the biggest problems in all of reality.

As a hardcore nondualist (with your blinkers firmly in place), you have failed to offer any explanation whatsoever as to who or what it was that grasped the fabric of reality and shaped it into the nuts and bolts workings of the universe.

You are guilty of something similar to what Rupert Sheldrake was complaining about when commenting on the implicit assumption of science:
Rupert Sheldrake in his book: The Science Delusion: Freeing the Spirit of Enquiry, wrote:
“It's almost as if science said, “Give me one free miracle, and from there the entire thing will proceed with a seamless, causal explanation.”
'17 The one free miracle was the sudden appearance of all the matter and energy in the universe, with all the laws that govern it.”
The point is that the proponents of nondualism seem to rely on the existence of that same “one free miracle” that the materialists rely on.
AlexW wrote: Tue Feb 25, 2020 10:12 am - but I have tasted an orange.
Who is this “I” who has tasted an orange?

For someone who refuses to accept the existence of the “you,” you certainly do use the “I” word a lot.

Yeah, yeah, I know, there is no “I,” there is only “awareness.”

Awareness tasted the orange. Awareness is formulating and then typing the words that are appearing on the computer screen. Awareness is going to make itself a sandwich. Awareness is scratching its butt. Awareness loves its mate and children. Awareness is wondering what to watch on television tonight. Awareness has to go to work in the morning. Etc., etc., etc.

Again, other than it being a contentious topic in these inane philosophical debates between misfits like you and me, I don’t think you have any idea of how utterly useless the concept (“model”) of nondualism is to humanity.

Now I’m not meaning to be dismissive of something that is important to you, AlexW, because I myself have had an experience of something that others would no doubt think was either a hallucination or a psychotic episode, but help me out here.

Help me to understand how if all 7.7 billion humans on earth had a “direct experience” of nonduality (non-separation), how would that be beneficial to us? How would that change anything as far as our everyday lives and interactions are concerned?
_______
AlexW
Posts: 691
Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2018 1:53 am

Re: Are all models wrong?

Post by AlexW »

seeds wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2020 1:06 am And secondly...

Really? You’re not endorsing...

(promoting, pushing, peddling, sanctioning, trying to sell)

...the concept of nondualism?

I think your words suggest otherwise.
What I am endorsing is to live, here, now - as it is directly experienced and not as it is thought to be.
I am endorsing reality, not the conceptual construct we have invented. I am proposing people should not spend as much time "in their head" / caught up in thought, but rather in the now - smell the roses, don't just describe/judge the smell.
Thats really all I am proposing.
seeds wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2020 1:06 am In order to preserve your belief system, you have completely ignored one of the biggest problems in all of reality.

As a hardcore nondualist (with your blinkers firmly in place), you have failed to offer any explanation whatsoever as to who or what it was that grasped the fabric of reality and shaped it into the nuts and bolts workings of the universe.
There really is no need to explain - at the end, every explanation has to be left behind anyway. I am thus very happy to dismantle any belief system, even the non dual one.
See, what I like about non dualism is that it actually provides a framework to do just that - to destroy belief - and once "accomplished" to leave this previously cherished belief behind --- like the raft that one uses to cross a river - once reaching the other shore it is not needed anymore, but it might still be of use to others, thus we still talk about it from time to time.
seeds wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2020 1:06 am Who is this “I” who has tasted an orange?

For someone who refuses to accept the existence of the “you,” you certainly do use the “I” word a lot.
Well... thats how language works, isn't it? Would sound pretty strange if I would try to avoid specific words...
And... I guess you know my answer anyway: there is no separate one tasting a separate thing called orange. This is just a dualistic interpretation.
seeds wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2020 1:06 am Yeah, yeah, I know, there is no “I,” there is only “awareness.”

Awareness tasted the orange. Awareness is formulating and then typing the words that are appearing on the computer screen. Awareness is going to make itself a sandwich. Awareness is scratching its butt. Awareness loves its mate and children. Awareness is wondering what to watch on television tonight. Awareness has to go to work in the morning. Etc., etc., etc.
Awareness neither is nor is it not. It is beyond existence and non existence.
It also doesn't do anything - it doesn't taste, type, eat, work, mate or wonder... all these activities are within mind/thought only.
seeds wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2020 1:06 am Again, other than it being a contentious topic in these inane philosophical debates between misfits like you and me, I don’t think you have any idea of how utterly useless the concept (“model”) of nondualism is to humanity.
As I stated previously, I do see the uselessness for people that are firmly established in their dualistic belief system - but once in a while everyone starts to wonder "Who am I?" - and depending on how serious one follows this investigation to the source, one will end up with non dual reality (or one stops before "all is lost" - where one continues his/her attempt to improve the self, the ego, to become a better person etc etc...)
seeds wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2020 1:06 am Help me to understand how if all 7.7 billion humans on earth had a “direct experience” of nonduality (non-separation), how would that be beneficial to us? How would that change anything as far as our everyday lives and interactions are concerned?
One "experience of non-separation" most likely will not change much. Most will simply forget it a minute later and continue with their life.
But a few it rattles to the core, they start investigating, read books, try find out what happened, to re-create this state of wonder. Ultimately its not about being in a specific state, but rather simply about being here, now - ultimately every "experience" is one of non-separation and every attempt to make happen what is already the case will actually work against it (its like using effort when trying to fall asleep - it wont work - one has to let go and let life work its magic).
What would change if "7.7 billion humans on earth" would actually embrace the moment? If their precious ego would diminish? I think the world would actually change a lot!
User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 8547
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: Are all models wrong?

Post by Dontaskme »

AlexW wrote: Fri Feb 28, 2020 3:21 amWell... thats how language works, isn't it? Would sound pretty strange if I would try to avoid specific words...
And... I guess you know my answer anyway: there is no separate one tasting a separate thing called orange. This is just a dualistic interpretation.
Very good, a reasonable and logically obvious reply, well said.

I'm totally at a loss while reading this thread as to why people like the avatar ''SEEDS'' who understands the concept of nonduality would even make the following statement at all :? :?

seeds wrote: ↑Fri Feb 28, 2020 1:06 am
Who is this “I” who has tasted an orange?

For someone who refuses to accept the existence of the “you,” you certainly do use the “I” word a lot.
It's like what the heck!!

Does it not occur to you ''seeds'' that maybe the whole point of the reality of being conscious is to WAKE UP from the dream of the personal I ? 8)

IMHO, It's a very positive event in ones life actually, and nowhere near to do with your personal hard core self bias stance that waking up does no good for humanity.
That's why I think you are barking up the wrong tree here. Even though I have praised your work in the past. But maybe it's just that you believe it's better never to wake up from the dream at all.

Maybe that's why some people never do, because maybe if everyone of us woke up from the dream of our being then it would be GAME OVER ...but we can't possibly know what will happen until it happens.

Personally, for me, waking up from the dream of separation has been the best thing that ever happened to me. It trumps absolutely all the riches and pleasures in the whole world. Nothing can compare to an enlightened mind.


.
Post Reply