Nondualism is not a form of Monism

[Atla]

Whatever the truth, it cannot be a standalone truth, it has to be qualified.
In the same of dream and external world the common denominator are the sense-data being processed in the same brain of a human being.

That is the point we need to qualify the perspective and context of the point we are making.
Note an iceberg appear to a separate thing from the ocean it is floating on in one perspective, but in another, the are not separated by merely made of the same H20 molecules in different compactness.
It is the same with a piece of charcoal and diamond in a tub of carbon powder, there is difference in one perspective but no separation of one view them in term of carbon element.

On such matters, I'm talking from the ideal of the 'absolute' or 'objective' perspective, which contains all other perspectives, obviously. When I'm talking from a non-absolute perspective, I'll let that be known.

What?
Don't you know, the more advance Science progressed from Newton's independent world, the more it give the observer [humans] a role in it.
Note the Observers effect.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)
In physics, the observer effect is the theory that the mere observation of a phenomenon inevitably changes that phenomenon. wiki

Which shows that there is no 'actual' observer as in: entity/subject/being, but instead we are an inseparable part of the world.

Note the 'Wave Function Collapse'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function_collapse
In quantum mechanics, wave function collapse is said to occur when a wave function—initially in a superposition of several eigenstates—appears to reduce to a single eigenstate due to interaction with the external world; this is called an "observation". -wki

There is no internal and external world in physics, and the interaction idea has always been quantum woo. It was finally experimentally refuted in the 90s. It is yet unknown what a 'quantum observation' is, but not the above, what you read on the wiki is the FAPP noninterpretation.

Both your points backfired badly, by now physicists have regretted a million times that the word 'observer' was chosen as the name for these things.

Okay I looked at the Kant quotes but have no idea how they relate to what I'm saying. What does some 'a priori knowledge' have to do with nondualism?

The last point is where Kant claimed whatever the ... reality, it has to conform to the human mind.

I don't see where. Looks like he said that if an object conforms to human intuition, then a priori knowledge may be possible about that object. That doesn't mean that all of reality conforms to human intuition.

[seeds]

Or at least this is what I've been told.

So what makes this 'nondualism' not a form of Monism as categorised in Philosophy?

The problem with nondualism is not that it may be true at some foundational level,...

(I’m thinking of Spinoza’s oneness substance)

...but that those who promote it (such as the Advaita “not-two” crowd) seem to think (or at least seem to imply) that it somehow resolves the mystery of existence.

However, if it is indeed a fact that everything is seamlessly interwoven in some non-dualistic or monistic fashion, then it would be nothing more than a quirky feature of reality that offers absolutely nothing toward answering the questions of what life, mind, and consciousness are, or how the hundred-billion+ galaxies of the universe were brought into being.
_______

[Skepdick]

However, if it is indeed a fact that everything is seamlessly interwoven in some non-dualistic or monistic fashion, then it would be nothing more than a quirky feature of reality that offers absolutely nothing toward answering the questions of what life, mind, and consciousness are, or how the hundred-billion+ galaxies of the universe were brought into being.

A theory that explains everything explains nothing.

It's not even wrong.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Whatever the truth, it cannot be a standalone truth, it has to be qualified.
In the same of dream and external world the common denominator are the sense-data being processed in the same brain of a human being.

That is the point we need to qualify the perspective and context of the point we are making.
Note an iceberg appear to a separate thing from the ocean it is floating on in one perspective, but in another, the are not separated by merely made of the same H20 molecules in different compactness.
It is the same with a piece of charcoal and diamond in a tub of carbon powder, there is difference in one perspective but no separation of one view them in term of carbon element.

On such matters, I'm talking from the ideal of the 'absolute' or 'objective' perspective, which contains all other perspectives, obviously. When I'm talking from a non-absolute perspective, I'll let that be known.

I presumed you are referring to the 'god's eye view' i.e.
you are attempting to extricate yourself from reality which you are part and parcel of,
to view reality independent of yourself.
This is an impossibility.
The most you can do is to reason it out as theoretical only but such a thing cannot be actualized.

As you have stated below;
"Which shows that there is no 'actual' observer as in: entity/subject/being, but instead we are an inseparable part of the world."

Since "we" are an inseparable part of the world [and reality] there is no way there can be an absolute [absolutely] or objective perspective.

What?
Don't you know, the more advance Science progressed from Newton's independent world, the more it give the observer [humans] a role in it.
Note the Observers effect.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observer_effect_(physics)
In physics, the observer effect is the theory that the mere observation of a phenomenon inevitably changes that phenomenon. wiki

Which shows that there is no 'actual' observer as in: entity/subject/being, but instead we are an inseparable part of the world.

Agree

Note the 'Wave Function Collapse'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wave_function_collapse
In quantum mechanics, wave function collapse is said to occur when a wave function—initially in a superposition of several eigenstates—appears to reduce to a single eigenstate due to interaction with the external world; this is called an "observation". -wki

There is no internal and external world in physics, and the interaction idea has always been quantum woo. It was finally experimentally refuted in the 90s. It is yet unknown what a 'quantum observation' is, but not the above, what you read on the wiki is the FAPP noninterpretation.

Both your points backfired badly, by now physicists have regretted a million times that the word 'observer' was chosen as the name for these things.

Whatever the terms, whatever is reality, it is inseparable from the human conditions [subjects]. Thus whatever the conclusions, they are intersubjective.

Okay I looked at the Kant quotes but have no idea how they relate to what I'm saying. What does some 'a priori knowledge' have to do with nondualism?

The last point is where Kant claimed whatever the ... reality, it has to conform to the human mind.

I don't see where. Looks like he said that if an object conforms to human intuition, then a priori knowledge may be possible about that object. That doesn't mean that all of reality conforms to human intuition.

Your "nondualism" [absolutely absolute] is an idea which cannot be proven empirically and experienced, thus a priori.
Note, a_posteriori is knowledge that is based on empirical and the experience.

As you have noted,
"we" are an inseparable part of the world [universe and reality].
Thus whatever the knowledge whether a posteriori or a priori it has to conform to the human condition and human intuition [deep] is the core of the human condition.
{nb: Kant's "intuition" is not the ordinary meaning intuition but refer to something deep within the human psyche."}

Due to lack of in depth the modern knowledge of evolutionary psychology and neuroscience, etc. Kant was limited the "categories" as discovered by the early Greek philosophers which to Kant are core of the human intuition.

Example, even logic which is seemingly independent of the empirical and experience is a priori rooted in biology.
The Evolution of Reason: Logic as a Branch of Biology - Cooper

There are many fields of knowledge that are grounded in human intuition which are independent of post human experiences, e.g. Mathematics, Science, Geometry.

Kant stated strongly, Metaphysics can never produced Synthetic a priori knowledge, i.e. there is nothing realistic for synthesis to generate knowledge that can be actualized in reality.
Anything that is declared to be totally unconditioned by the human intuition, e.g. your nondualism which is absolutely-absolute, or God [also absolutely absolute], the soul [absolute], these cannot be realizable a priori knowledge and are thus a priori illusions.

[Atla]

I presumed you are referring to the 'god's eye view' i.e.
you are attempting to extricate yourself from reality which you are part and parcel of,
to view reality independent of yourself.
This is an impossibility.
The most you can do is to reason it out as theoretical only but such a thing cannot be actualized.

As you have stated below;
"Which shows that there is no 'actual' observer as in: entity/subject/being, but instead we are an inseparable part of the world."

Since "we" are an inseparable part of the world [and reality] there is no way there can be an absolute [absolutely] or objective perspective.

That's why I wrote: 'ideal', obviously.

Whatever the terms, whatever is reality, it is inseparable from the human conditions [subjects]. Thus whatever the conclusions, they are intersubjective.

I don't know what you mean by intersubjective, but I've never seen this word used for reality. You just agreed that there are no 'actual' subjects and maybe by reality you just mean reality as conceptualized?

Your "nondualism" [absolutely absolute] is an idea which cannot be proven empirically and experienced, thus a priori.
Note, a_posteriori is knowledge that is based on empirical and the experience.

As you have noted,
"we" are an inseparable part of the world [universe and reality].
Thus whatever the knowledge whether a posteriori or a priori it has to conform to the human condition and human intuition [deep] is the core of the human condition.
{nb: Kant's "intuition" is not the ordinary meaning intuition but refer to something deep within the human psyche."}

Due to lack of in depth the modern knowledge of evolutionary psychology and neuroscience, etc. Kant was limited the "categories" as discovered by the early Greek philosophers which to Kant are core of the human intuition.

Example, even logic which is seemingly independent of the empirical and experience is a priori rooted in biology.
The Evolution of Reason: Logic as a Branch of Biology - Cooper

There are many fields of knowledge that are grounded in human intuition which are independent of post human experiences, e.g. Mathematics, Science, Geometry.

Kant stated strongly, Metaphysics can never produced Synthetic a priori knowledge, i.e. there is nothing realistic for synthesis to generate knowledge that can be actualized in reality.
Anything that is declared to be totally unconditioned by the human intuition, e.g. your nondualism which is absolutely-absolute, or God [also absolutely absolute], the soul [absolute], these cannot be realizable a priori knowledge and are thus a priori illusions.

I don't know what your point is. Of course nondualism is an idea that can't be experienced "by itself" (those who claim otherwise are delusional). But it usually does lead to a very different state of mind, a very different life experience.

Of course nondualism can't be proven with certainty (those who claim otherwise are delusional), but nothing else can be proven with certainty either. All worldviews can only be falsified. Nondualism is simply the only one that's consistent with 100% of all scientific knowledge so far (a posteriori I guess).

Since you claim to have exposed a great slip of mine, care to quote where I claimed that nondualism is a priori? You can 'sort of' get there a priori too, by meditation/direct experience, but that's more like a coincidence than ingeniousness.

Your Kant just seems to have said: if the observable universe conforms to human intuition about non-separateness, then a priori knowledge may be possible about the observable universe. Well the observable universe happens to conform to human intuition about non-separateness.

[surreptitious57]

Everything that exists is directly or indirectly connected to everything else that exists
Consequently there is only one reality so therefore the default position is nondualism

And so distinctions such as physical / mental or quantum / classical for example are entirely arbitrary
They only exist within human minds and nowhere else and as such have no relevance to reality as it is

All states of consciousness are also artificial categories of the mind regardless of how different they may actually seem
And so for example someone who is astrally projecting is within exactly the same reality as someone who is fast asleep

[Veritas Aequitas]

I don't know what your point is. Of course nondualism is an idea that can't be experienced "by itself" (those who claim otherwise are delusional). But it usually does lead to a very different state of mind, a very different life experience.

Of course nondualism can't be proven with certainty (those who claim otherwise are delusional), but nothing else can be proven with certainty either. All worldviews can only be falsified. Nondualism is simply the only one that's consistent with 100% of all scientific knowledge so far (a posteriori I guess).

Since you claim to have exposed a great slip of mine, care to quote where I claimed that nondualism is a priori? You can 'sort of' get there a priori too, by meditation/direct experience, but that's more like a coincidence than ingeniousness.

Your Kant just seems to have said: if the observable universe conforms to human intuition about non-separateness, then a priori knowledge may be possible about the observable universe. Well the observable universe happens to conform to human intuition about non-separateness.

Basically this is the point;

If your nondualism is confined only to your own experience and mind plus it disappear upon death of the person, then that is not an issue.
The reason is many people experience nondualism as an altered state of consciousness which disappear upon death.

But if you insist nondualism related to a person
-still exists after death,
-exists independent of the human conditions,
-exists even if all humans are extinct,
then such a nondualism is an a priori transcendental illusion.

Whatever is objective reality is leverage upon intersubjective consensus, i.e. what is real is because every one agree it is real.
Why is a real table is real intersubjective is because everyone agree it is a real table and it can be explained and justify by Science to be real.

Note I quote this often;

• Such questions are bewildering, and it is difficult to know that even the strangest hypotheses may not be true.
  Thus our familiar table, which has roused but the slightest thoughts in us hitherto, has become a problem full of surprising possibilities.
  The one thing we know about it is that it is not what it seems.
  Beyond this modest result, so far, we have the most complete liberty of conjecture.
  Leibniz tells us it is a community of souls: Berkeley tells us it is an idea in the mind of God; sober science, scarcely less wonderful, tells us it is a vast collection of electric charges in violent motion.
  
  Among these surprising possibilities, doubt suggests that perhaps there is no table at all.
  Bertrand Russell

We all recognized a physical table is real because we all agree it is real, i.e. there is intersubjective consensus, i.e. agreed by all subjects based on common sense or other means.

But when one query the above truth and reality philosophically we cannot establish with 100% certainty there is a real table and thus perhaps there is no real table at all.

But as a consolation, Russell stated,

• Philosophy, if it cannot answer so many questions as we could wish, has at least the power of asking questions which increase the interest of the world, and show the strangeness and wonder lying just below the surface even in the commonest things of daily life.

[Atla]

I don't know what your point is. Of course nondualism is an idea that can't be experienced "by itself" (those who claim otherwise are delusional). But it usually does lead to a very different state of mind, a very different life experience.

Of course nondualism can't be proven with certainty (those who claim otherwise are delusional), but nothing else can be proven with certainty either. All worldviews can only be falsified. Nondualism is simply the only one that's consistent with 100% of all scientific knowledge so far (a posteriori I guess).

Since you claim to have exposed a great slip of mine, care to quote where I claimed that nondualism is a priori? You can 'sort of' get there a priori too, by meditation/direct experience, but that's more like a coincidence than ingeniousness.

Your Kant just seems to have said: if the observable universe conforms to human intuition about non-separateness, then a priori knowledge may be possible about the observable universe. Well the observable universe happens to conform to human intuition about non-separateness.

Basically this is the point;

If your nondualism is confined only to your own experience and mind plus it disappear upon death of the person, then that is not an issue.
The reason is many people experience nondualism as an altered state of consciousness which disappear upon death.

But if you insist nondualism related to a person
-still exists after death,
-exists independent of the human conditions,
-exists even if all humans are extinct,
then such a nondualism is an a priori transcendental illusion.

Whatever is objective reality is leverage upon intersubjective consensus, i.e. what is real is because every one agree it is real.
Why is a real table is real intersubjective is because everyone agree it is a real table and it can be explained and justify by Science to be real.

Note I quote this often;

• Such questions are bewildering, and it is difficult to know that even the strangest hypotheses may not be true.
  Thus our familiar table, which has roused but the slightest thoughts in us hitherto, has become a problem full of surprising possibilities.
  The one thing we know about it is that it is not what it seems.
  Beyond this modest result, so far, we have the most complete liberty of conjecture.
  Leibniz tells us it is a community of souls: Berkeley tells us it is an idea in the mind of God; sober science, scarcely less wonderful, tells us it is a vast collection of electric charges in violent motion.
  
  Among these surprising possibilities, doubt suggests that perhaps there is no table at all.
  Bertrand Russell

We all recognized a physical table is real because we all agree it is real, i.e. there is intersubjective consensus, i.e. agreed by all subjects based on common sense or other means.

But when one query the above truth and reality philosophically we cannot establish with 100% certainty there is a real table and thus perhaps there is no real table at all.

But as a consolation, Russell stated,

• Philosophy, if it cannot answer so many questions as we could wish, has at least the power of asking questions which increase the interest of the world, and show the strangeness and wonder lying just below the surface even in the commonest things of daily life.

You still seem to be saying that reality is somehow fundamentally dependent on human understanding. But that may be some kind of derealization issue, as humans have no such special role.

There is an objective reality beyond this 'intersubjective consensus', we just can't know what that reality is like.

[Skepdick]

There is an objective reality beyond this 'intersubjective consensus', we just can't know what that reality is like.

And yet we say shit about "reality", and we have words like "atoms", "quarks", "time" and "space" and we call all those things "real".

The fundamental distinction between realists and anti-realists is that the former are just confused about the thing they are talking about.
They think they are talking about the territory when they are talking about their map (of the territory).
Anti-realists are cognisant of the fact that they are always talking about the map.

Either way - both realists and anti-realists are non-dualists.

[Veritas Aequitas]

You still seem to be saying that reality is somehow fundamentally dependent on human understanding. But that may be some kind of derealization issue, as humans have no such special role.

There is no issue of derealization. If I hear a warning for an earthquake or tsunami or whatever the potential danger, I will run to safer grounds. I will not deny such are unreal or derealized.

There is an objective reality beyond this 'intersubjective consensus', we just can't know what that reality is like.

That is Meno's Paradox, i.e. how can you ever know something when you do not know what it is really like in the first place.
That is the point 'we just can't know what reality is like' in the absolute sense and that is forever and till eternity.

Whatever is not confirmed but can be hope for is anything that can be grounded empirically [Kant's intuition] and reasoned with justifications.
For example I can predict that human-liked aliens do exists in a planet 1 light year away because all the elements [bolded] are empirically possibilities. This is a matter of producing the thing for empirically verification.

In you case, your "nondualism" [per your definition] is like a searching for a square-circle which is a non-starter and an impossibility everywhere and anytime.

The reason why you and others are chasing the impossibly and yearn for hope of an answer for a non-empirically thing from pure reason is basically driven by a fundamental psychological impulses [subconscious and subliminal] for certainty and answers.

Note, the most practical and advice from sages regarding optimal well being is to live in the reality of the 'now'. But in this case you are focusing and leveraging on an impossibility [apparent reality and falsehoods] to feel good.

[Atla]

You still seem to be saying that reality is somehow fundamentally dependent on human understanding. But that may be some kind of derealization issue, as humans have no such special role.

There is no issue of derealization. If I hear a warning for an earthquake or tsunami or whatever the potential danger, I will run to safer grounds. I will not deny such are unreal or derealized.

There is an objective reality beyond this 'intersubjective consensus', we just can't know what that reality is like.

That is Meno's Paradox, i.e. how can you ever know something when you do not know what it is really like in the first place.
That is the point 'we just can't know what reality is like' in the absolute sense and that is forever and till eternity.

Whatever is not confirmed but can be hope for is anything that can be grounded empirically [Kant's intuition] and reasoned with justifications.
For example I can predict that human-liked aliens do exists in a planet 1 light year away because all the elements [bolded] are empirically possibilities. This is a matter of producing the thing for empirically verification.

In you case, your "nondualism" [per your definition] is like a searching for a square-circle which is a non-starter and an impossibility everywhere and anytime.

The reason why you and others are chasing the impossibly and yearn for hope of an answer for a non-empirically thing from pure reason is basically driven by a fundamental psychological impulses [subconscious and subliminal] for certainty and answers.

Note, the most practical and advice from sages regarding optimal well being is to live in the reality of the 'now'. But in this case you are focusing and leveraging on an impossibility [apparent reality and falsehoods] to feel good.

No, you have unusually strong psychological impulses. You always project them on others which is a really disgusting practice, instead of weakening your own impulses (because suppression and ignoring don't work).

And what you wrote above has nothing to do with nondualism; the "knowable" and "a priori" parts of existence are also the absolute (otherwise none of this would be happening). It's merely idiotic to stop at solipsism when assuming things about reality, but if you are "looking for" the absolute, you've missed the point.

FYI when the study of science forced me into nondualism, I didn't even like it first.

[Skepdick]

In you case, your "nondualism" [per your definition] is like a searching for a square-circle which is a non-starter and an impossibility everywhere and anytime.

Argument from ignorance.

Square circles are everywhere. It is because of Meno's paradox that you can't recognise them for what they are.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicab_geometry#Circles

[Eodnhoj7]

In you case, your "nondualism" [per your definition] is like a searching for a square-circle which is a non-starter and an impossibility everywhere and anytime.

Argument from ignorance.

Square circles are everywhere. It is because of Meno's paradox that you can't recognise them for what they are.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicab_geometry#Circles

ROFL! I actually laughed...

A circle is also an infinite number of squares, thus is a square dynamically changing.

[surreptitious57]

A circle is an infinite number of straight lines so infinitesimally small it creates the illusion of smoothness
But absolutely perfect ones can only be imagined because they cannot exist either naturally or artificially
Examine a so called perfect geometrical circle at the quantum level and it will seem anything but smooth

[Dontaskme]

However, if it is indeed a fact that everything is seamlessly interwoven in some non-dualistic or monistic fashion, then it would be nothing more than a quirky feature of reality that offers absolutely nothing toward answering the questions of what life, mind, and consciousness are, or how the hundred-billion+ galaxies of the universe were brought into being.
_______

Life doesn't question itself, any apparent questions arising here is life that doesn't question itself questioning itself about what's not happening appearing to be happening.