Prostitution and Eternal Values

[Atla]

Atla replied to Dontaskme:

Also, how can you be a nondualist and also be against science? That's a contradiction you know.

Dontaskme is 'nondualist' by which DAM means there is one substance which is mental substance (to use the standard Western ontology lexicon, which DAM has not learned).

I don't agree with what you wrote, above, Atla. According to the standard Western ontological lexicon few Cartesian dualists ,i.e. substance dualists , are proper scientists. Proper scientists are monists not dualists. However proper scientists are seldom substance idealists like DAM. They are neutral monists. For instance a neurologist will not be averse in theory to working alongside a psychiatrist. And a physicist will concede that the observer affects the interpretation of the experimental finding.

I think I explained to you in another thread about ten times, that Western nondualism (substance monism) is wildly different from Eastern nondualism (no substance, non-monistic).

[Dontaskme]

You seem to be convinced of this dangerous Neo-Advaitan bullshit where you think that you don't exist at all. But the human self is real. (Well unless you are one of those few p-zombies who really lack self-awareness.)

Also, how can you be a nondualist and also be against science? That's a contradiction you know.

You really do talk a load of old BS don't you. You even said to me, that you didn't see that one coming, regarding the nondual nature of reality, what then, did it scare the living daylights out of you that much that you have to respond to a nondual poster in this way?

It's only dangerous knowledge to those who have ''someone'' to defend.

Oh my god I'm such a contradiction ...oh my, what are we to do, listen to yourself, your such a cry baby, it's good job I don't have to believe in any of this BS.

.

[Dontaskme]

I think I explained to you in another thread about ten times, that Western nondualism (substance monism) is wildly different from Eastern nondualism (no substance, non-monistic).

Only in your dreams.

[Dontaskme]

Incredibly irrelevant bull. Your comments are not even close to worth reading.

There is no one who reads this shit or writes it. It's all pie in de sky. Pure dreamscape fantasy.

It seems there are those rare occasional flashes in your dreamscape fantasy when do "know yourself", due perhaps to an involuntary moment of self-critique? It would suit you well to continue any such instances of self-revelation offered by serendipity.

No such thing as serendipity ...no mistake can happen no accident ever happened...all is going live right now infinitely for eternity...there is no time machine to undo the doing.

There is no self to know itself, that's how the self knows itself.

.

[Atla]

You really do talk a load of old BS don't you. You even said to me, that you didn't see that one coming, regarding the nondual nature of reality, what then, did it scare the living daylights out of you that much that you have to respond to a nondual poster in this way?

It's only dangerous knowledge to those who have ''someone'' to defend.

Oh my god I'm such a contradiction ...oh my, what are we to do, listen to yourself, your such a cry baby, it's good job I don't have to believe in any of this BS.

.

Yeah I was mainly researching science at that time so I didn't see it coming that I'll also make a major philosophical discovery.

I'm not scared at all, what should I be scared of anyway? On the other hand, maybe you are scared to actually exist, so you do everything you can to pretend yourself away.

Well it's not working. Every time you look into the mirror, you see the same human. That must be frightening for you, especially now that you already might have alienated your family with your behaviour.

[Dontaskme]

Atla replied to Dontaskme:

Also, how can you be a nondualist and also be against science? That's a contradiction you know.

Dontaskme is 'nondualist' by which DAM means there is one substance which is mental substance (to use the standard Western ontology lexicon, which DAM has not learned).

I don't agree with what you wrote, above, Atla. According to the standard Western ontological lexicon few Cartesian dualists ,i.e. substance dualists , are proper scientists. Proper scientists are monists not dualists. However proper scientists are seldom substance idealists like DAM. They are neutral monists. For instance a neurologist will not be averse in theory to working alongside a psychiatrist. And a physicist will concede that the observer affects the interpretation of the experimental finding.

Dam is neutral about all ideas especially the word idealist...I don't believe concepts are real anymore. I used to but not any more. Stop projecting what you think is going on inside someone else's mind.

Science measures the recording that's already showing up....

What science cannot measure is the measurer ...the one measuring, aka consciousness....have you ever tried to measure consciousness?

[Dontaskme]

Yeah I was mainly researching science at that time so I didn't see it coming that I'll also make a major philosophical discovery.

Great, and good for you.

I'm not scared at all, what should I be scared of anyway?

Great, because there is nothing here to be scared of, the only fear is the word fear itself.

On the other hand, maybe you are scared to actually exist, so you do everything you can to pretend yourself away.

No, this is only your perception of me, it's not how I view the situation at all. I have never once said those words about myself, you have said them.

We're all just projecting our own thoughts onto others..aka the external world.

Well it's not working. Every time you look into the mirror, you see the same human. That must be frightening for you, especially now that you already might have alienated your family with your behaviour.

Again, your own stupid projection that's not actually how it is except how you yourself perceive it is.

And that is why we don't see eye to eye at all, because I actually think you are an idiot, and I've stopped suffering idiots a long time ago.

[Arising_uk]

No one's and everything's..which is the same one, which is not-a-thing.

Given what you say how can you know this?

There is nothing behind the recorded image to show up as a living thing, all recordings are dead things...you can burn an imaged photo of yourself..but you cannot burn the real self, because it's unavailable - it doesn't exist, and yet.. here it is watching it's imaged photograph of itself go up in flames...isn't that cool?

Er!? Here what is and what is the recording of then?

The body is the body, there is nothing occupying the body that is anything other than the body itself. To say the body is the entity is to imply the body is something else. ...

Is it? I'd have thought its just to say that the body is an entity in an external world. If you say it is not then you cannot say any of this "The body is the body, there is nothing occupying the body that is anything other than the body itself".

There is no external world separate from the inner world, there is no room to make such an approach to either except through ''thought'' which is non-locatable as well.

How are you getting an "inner world" then as such implies an "outer"?

We cannot talk about this or describe it...no word can describe what is without altering it into what isn't..

Then you should be silent. However the rest of us can just point at an external world.

No word can describe this...or all words describe it.

They really don't.

It's just what appears to be happening.

What is?

[Dontaskme]

No one's and everything's..which is the same one, which is not-a-thing.

Given what you say how can you know this?

I know this because I don't know this...were you not listening the last time I said this.

We can only know something when it is in relation to something else. ..which in this case is not-knowing.

There is nothing behind the recorded image to show up as a living thing, all recordings are dead things...you can burn an imaged photo of yourself..but you cannot burn the real self, because it's unavailable - it doesn't exist, and yet.. here it is watching it's imaged photograph of itself go up in flames...isn't that cool?

Er!? Here what is and what is the recording of then?

Your faceless face.

How are you getting an "inner world" then as such implies an "outer"?

Via knowledge of opposites. Nothing and Everything are the same No thing =ONE

We cannot talk about this or describe it...no word can describe what is without altering it into what isn't..

Then you should be silent. However the rest of us can just point at an external world.

I am silent..there is only ever silence sounding.

No word can describe this...or all words describe it.

They really don't.

They really do.

It's just what appears to be happening.

What is?

What ever the eye is apparently seeing.

[Belinda]

Atla wrote:

I think I explained to you in another thread about ten times, that Western nondualism (substance monism) is wildly different from Eastern nondualism (no substance, non-monistic).

Sorry Atla I must have forgotten, which must be irritating for you.Any chance that you could explain again, in easy language please?

I take it that when Dontaskme refers to nondualism she refers to Eastern nondualism(no substance, non-monistic). The difference seems to hinge on contradictory usage of 'substance'.

In either case I cannot see any implication of eternal values

[Dontaskme]

In either case I cannot see any implication of eternal values

That's because you are looking through the wrong end of the telescope...

[Yrreg]

[Bolding by Yrreg]

Does prostitution exist for those who do not recognize eternal values? By eternal values I mean “everlasting morals, enduring principle” which have always existed.

It has become acceptable in modern times to suggest that we create our own reality and values so by definition they have a pragmatic social origin. They are temporary in contrast with eternal values which are permanent.

From this perspective is it right to say that sexual prostitution no longer exists since there are no eternal values? We create our own values. If women or men are seen as prostitutes, aren’t they really just being themselves? How can a person prostitute themselves if they create their own reality and have nothing objective to prostitute? A man or woman cannot sell themselves cheaply since they are just being normal and have defined their own worth.

Should colleges ban the use of the word since like many other words, prostitution or the loss of objective human quality by selling oneself cheaply is now considered insulting and politically incorrect?

The author of the thread asks the question, "Does prostitution exist for those who do not recognize eternal values?

I submit that the answer should be founded upon the definitions of the following three terms:

1. prostitution
2. eternal values
3. sell themselves

From my part I understand No. 1 prostitution to consist in a person selling sexual service to another person.

As regard No. 2 eternal values I understand it to mean moral norms that must be enforced by a particular society for as long as such a particular society is determined to enforce it as one of its moral norms.

As regards No. 3 sell themselves, I understand it to mean prostitution as understood in my definition No. 1, see above.

So, on the basis of my definition of eternal values in No. 2, my answer to the question of the OP, namely:

"Does prostitution exist for those who do not recognize eternal values?"

My answer is:

"No, prostitution does not exist for those who do not recognize it to be prohibited in their society as one of their eternal values."

Dear colleagues here, what are your comments to my answer to the OP?

[Belinda]

Yrreg, I would have thought that eternal values are Platonic values. Eternal is a big word which means something other than long lasting or everlasting.

Eternal means absolute, not relative to cultures, eras, or places.

[Yrreg]

Dear Belinda, you see the word eternal means timeless or in all the time; but mankind which is concerned with prostitution, it is not eternal: mankind itself and its concern with prostitution - both are not eternal.

So, the most I can make relevant the OP in regard to mankind, is to link it to a particular society of humans, when it is determined to enforce its prohibition against prostitution, the prohibition for such a particular society is then in effect some sort of eternal value for it, the particular society of some people i.e. some group of humans.

And when another particular society does not ascribe any 'eternal' value to any prohibition of prostitution, then for this other society, prostitution is perfectly all right, viz., to the humans making up such a society which does not attribute any 'eternal' value to any prohibition against prostitution, i.e., selling one's sexual service to a fellow human being.

[Nick_A]

Yrreg

Dear Belinda, you see the word eternal means timeless or in all the time; but mankind which is concerned with prostitution, it is not eternal: mankind itself and its concern with prostitution - both are not eternal.

Are you suggesting that if the earth were destroyed, eternal values as universal truths would no longer exist?