I must bequeath to you this long speach, but the most important thing would be to show the first step in saying what science is, prior to going on about all sorts of bizarre metaphysics which stem from the neglect of that first step.
“Seeing is always happening, but in dualistic thought there is kind of an entity doing the seeing, or it's happening to the entity, or the eye does it. In nondual thought it's basically just happening without an entity, it's an unseparable part of the universal process. But the eye of course still plays an important part in seeing, and the intellect plays an important part in interpreting.
About logic, well I use the Western binary logic. The Eastern pluralistic "logic" I find pretty much useless for anything and nonsensical.”
This sounds entirely verbal to me, it’s like lawyer talk, wholly empty of content. To say something is happening without an “entity” implies that someone understands themselves as an “entity”, myself, and then make a speculative leap into cloudcuckooland, a hypothesis, and say, but “really…”. It is baby talk. Socrates, as presented in Plato’s work, never discusses anything like it. The things they say are much more simple. For instance, I see a picture of Yukio Mishima, and, unlike someone who doesn’t know what he looks like, I say at once, that is the surpassing dramatist and novelist, Mishima. The inference is that the person who knows, is different from the one who doesn’t know. And then the question, why?, is answered by the notion of knowledge. It’s hard to see, in almost everything Plato and Aristotle say, how one can say they are simply wrong. They describe things, and the notions follow by “force”, as it were.
What does “binary logic” mean? No such notion exists in the Western tradition. You are speaking of pure maths, i.e., rules made in imagination. It does not involve reason in any way, it is imagination or picturing the relations of symbols. There is such a thing as a rule of thought forbidding contradiction, but it is not artificial, it simply is a name for saying something false. Someone says that the Greeks lived on the Mediterranean, and some moments latter they say, the Greeks, they who live in the Americas. If one keeps shifting one does sophistry, rather than dialectic. There is no Eastern “logic” at all if one speaks appropriately. Logic is part of the word logos, meaning speach. Logic is the art of speaking or, what is the same, reasoning. The whole thing revolves in a system of thinking that now permeates the whole world. The reason is that what logic is is connected to the interpretation of things as available or present, so that it refers only to assertions as what corresponds to a thing already there or given, and known in the sense given above.
“What point is there in investing into this way of thinking in the first place, when science has mostly already solved these questions?”
It’s as though you were hypnotized. The question isn’t even asked, one would have to overcome the resistance to asking the question first. You didn’t answer at all, what is the object? And stop saying “science” as though it meant something. It’s especially absurd given the metaphysical vapidities you have produced and claimed to be subscribed to. In the tradition, going somewhere, seeing it directly, was called empirical, i.e., gathering the rough experiences of things. Yet, we don’t know what these “things” are. How does one first generate a notion of the sensorium? Exactly. Say it in normal terms, not metaphysical or “scientific”. I mean at the level in which I gave the example about what knowing is.
“It still is psychotic,”
If you are this squeamish and fastidious you should not do philosophy or science. It’s silly and very religious, i.e., it attacks non-conformity. One needs to be open to reflection in philosophy. Get your head out of the amniotic fluid. It’s important to recognize that thinking about something, and understanding it, is not to subscribe to it. If one fears being brainwashed one will never be able to see what avenues others have followed, and so will not learn.
“ individual self is illusory”
That’s wholly vacant metaphysics. One experiences oneself, and then abstracting from that starting point into speculative notions one claims not to believe in it. Baby talk. You are still the one who denies yourself. It’s very Freudian. Freud says the masochist whips himself, and so remains the master. Your religion is one of whipping yourself. The weeping, or, if you like, joyfulness, or, if you like, nihilism, of the one who makes claims about what "really" is. And thereby neglects investigation of what is!
Now, I tell you, as long as one plays such games one doesn't do philosophy. Dreck and drivel.
“But there was no such actual separation found anywhere.”
I find it everywhere, as do you and everyone else. What you are saying is that in reflection we can posit that (i.e., as a metaphysics of 'mechanics'). True enough, and yet, how is it to be thought? Obviously any being that didn’t make such distinctions would die at once. But, worse than that, as Kant pointed out, if we do not consider causality, nothing will be intelligible at all. Supposing we had no intelligibility, and made no distinctions, yet, do we not then think of a common sense without any content, alongside this one, where there are many things, and much intelligibility? what would then be the principle of preferring, as more real, the lack of content or intelligibility? It becomes a moral dictate.
Your thinking is very confused. You praise “science” without asking where does one first raise the conception? It's not like a stone in the path. Form common sense? And then at once, and at the same time, you slip into a moralistic metaphysics which insists on a certain interpretation of the lack of “actual separation found”.
So, first, ask, what do you mean by science? Whatever a public opinion poll would say? How does one ask the question, what’s the first step? how is it asked, and why? It can only be asked because it is already in our common sense, in our average daily talk. And there it means, to everyone, vaguely, what is done in the universities under such names as biology and chemistry. Some answer like that needs to lead us towards some distinctions and determinations. Yet, in arriving at our meaning we act on our judgment, which is part of the current common sense. Thus, some person, ad hominem
, must hold up a statement of what science is, and subscribe to it. That is the old meaning of dialogical science, fetting statements which someone grants. If no one is there, ad hominem
, there is no arguing against the statement. One can not argue with one who does not affirm the statement.
You see, “science” must stand as an “actual separation found”, else, what are you speaking of? Aristotle, for instance, understood science as arts that require a logos, and not only mimicking. I mean, one might learn shirt making without any speaking about it, or hypothesising. But, theology, by contrast, is a science only because it requires reasoning, i.e., logos.