ANEKANTAVADA

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 7103
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: ANEKANTAVADA

Post by Dontaskme » Tue Oct 01, 2019 8:27 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Oct 01, 2019 5:53 am

DAM is messed up because she is stuck in ONE perspective only.
I have many views, but I choose to talk about the same one most of the time, I'll grant you that observation you have. But my point with this thread is to announce that every view is right and that it doesn't matter how that view presents itself or how it is delivered. Similarly, every view point is right within the context of the Indra's Net metaphor.

Indra's net symbolises the universe as a web of connections and interdependencies among all it's members, wherein every member is both a manifestation of the whole and inseparable from the whole. Like a string of pearls, there is no neckless without the individual beads that form the whole.


“The Net of Indra is a profound and subtle metaphor for the structure of reality. Imagine a vast net; at each crossing point there is a jewel; each jewel is perfectly clear and reflects all the other jewels in the net, the way two mirrors placed opposite each other will reflect an image ad infinitum. The jewel in this metaphor stands for an individual being, or an individual consciousness, or a cell or an atom. Every jewel is intimately connected with all other jewels in the universe, and a change in one jewel means a change, however slight, in every other jewel.”

I'm just not as finicky or pedantic as you VA...I don't have to be thoroughly detailed in order to understand what I understand.
And in fact every post you have made to this thread I already understand and know about.
So you can keep bashing me all you like with your stupid ideas about the state of my brain. You're dumb as rocks comments about loose wires are like water off a ducks back to me.

.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2711
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: ANEKANTAVADA

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Tue Oct 01, 2019 9:05 am

Dontaskme wrote:
Tue Oct 01, 2019 8:27 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Oct 01, 2019 5:53 am

DAM is messed up because she is stuck in ONE perspective only.
I have many views, but I choose to talk about the same one most of the time, I'll grant you that observation you have. But my point with this thread is to announce that every view is right and that it doesn't matter how that view presents itself or how it is delivered. Similarly, every view point is right within the context of the Indra's Net metaphor.

Indra's net symbolises the universe as a web of connections and interdependencies among all it's members, wherein every member is both a manifestation of the whole and inseparable from the whole. Like a string of pearls, there is no neckless without the individual beads that form the whole.


“The Net of Indra is a profound and subtle metaphor for the structure of reality. Imagine a vast net; at each crossing point there is a jewel; each jewel is perfectly clear and reflects all the other jewels in the net, the way two mirrors placed opposite each other will reflect an image ad infinitum. The jewel in this metaphor stands for an individual being, or an individual consciousness, or a cell or an atom. Every jewel is intimately connected with all other jewels in the universe, and a change in one jewel means a change, however slight, in every other jewel.”

I'm just not as finicky or pedantic as you VA...I don't have to be thoroughly detailed in order to understand what I understand.
And in fact every post you have made to this thread I already understand and know about.
So you can keep bashing me all you like with your stupid ideas about the state of my brain. You're dumb as rocks comments about loose wires are like water off a ducks back to me.
Indra's Net is about determination and interconnectedness.
If you research Indra's Net all over the internet, there is no relation of it to the issue of 'right'.
The principle of Indra's Net is one view, all things are interconnected and such there is no question of something existing independent of everything else.

But if are to apply the ANEKANTAVADA we need to shift perspective to the other view as well, i.e. there are things existing independently from other things.

Thus we have;
  • View 1: there is indra's Net +
    View 2: there is no Indra's Net +
    Views 3 - 7.
How could you say, your views are the same as mine?

Your 'there is no me, no you, no mine, no self, and no whatever' is a one tracked mind due to loose wires up there.

It would be the same as mine if you agree, within each individual,
  • View 1. 'there is me, you, mine, myself, and whatever' +
    View 2. 'there is no me, no you, no mine, no self, and no whatever' +
    View 3 to 7.
As far as I am aware you are stuck with View 2 at all times while everyone is stupid in believing otherwise.

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 7103
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: ANEKANTAVADA

Post by Dontaskme » Tue Oct 01, 2019 9:09 am

Vertias wrote: How could you say, your views are the same as mine?
I never said they are the same as yours. I said every view is right, not necessarily the same.

It's different that's all. And every difference is right.

.

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 7103
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: ANEKANTAVADA

Post by Dontaskme » Tue Oct 01, 2019 10:52 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Oct 01, 2019 9:05 am

As far as I am aware you are stuck with View 2 at all times while everyone is stupid in believing otherwise.
You are stupid to believe your own lies, you seem to hold to this one-sided view of how I view reality.

You need to let that one-sided view go, because it's totally not how this one here operates. But then if you insist on believing the contrary then stay with your one-sided view, it's no skin off my nose, only I know what I'm thinking, not you.



.

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 7103
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm
Location: Nowhere

Re: ANEKANTAVADA

Post by Dontaskme » Tue Oct 01, 2019 2:22 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Oct 01, 2019 5:53 am
In the common sense perspective, a diamond piece which is hard is different from a piece of pure charcoal which is soft. Thus to insist a piece of diamond is the SAME as a piece of charcoal within the common and ordinary sense [external qualities] perspective would be a false statement.
No one in their common sense RIGHT mind would ever argue that dumb comparison statement in the first place you idiot.

Even a blind man would know soft charcoal is not the same as a diamond.

Someone saying a diamond is hard is RIGHT
Someone saying charcoal is soft is RIGHT

That's what's being pointed to here, every one who knows something about something is right ..But your argument goes off the scale because it's so obvious that of course diamond and charcoal are not the same, no one ever said they were not, no one is denying that, your comparisons and arguments against what you only think you think I am thinking are so demented.



.

User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 3351
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: ANEKANTAVADA

Post by Lacewing » Tue Oct 01, 2019 3:57 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Oct 01, 2019 5:53 am
There are many views of reality, i.e. truths.
Agreed! I, personally, DON'T think there is ONE TRUTH to be known/seen, but this does NOT mean that all views are therefore truth. The human realm is full of delusion.

What I've noticed is that DAM makes extreme statements (which I think is her way of trying to have/maintain a sense of knowing about reality, which is also a form of control), THEN -- when her extreme statements are challenged -- she shifts to the opposite, as if to cover all the bases and avoid capture. One minute she'll say there is no one and nothing, and the next minute she'll say it's all bullshit. One minute she KNOWS all of it, and the next minute she'll say none of us know anything. She shifts to avoid accountability.

If there's NO ONE > you can't see/touch her.
If it's ALL bullshit > hers doesn't stand out.
This skitzo dance enables her to make extreme statements with no accountability. I think it's a dishonest way to discuss philosophy because she keeps invalidating herself and her words. Why would anyone take any claim as truth when she's shown over and over that she'll invalidate it (to champion another truth) in the next sentence?

This is why this TOPIC actually seems to be her attempt to justify free license and validity to say ANYTHING -- because EVERY VIEW IS TRUTH, and EVERY PERSON IS TRUTH. Again she presents an extreme, without balance or discernment -- and without balance or discernment, everything becomes meaningless. When everything is meaningless, you can't be held accountable.

All of this seems like a cover for self-indulgent delusion.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 5116
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: ANEKANTAVADA

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Tue Oct 01, 2019 8:52 pm

Dontaskme wrote:
Sun Sep 29, 2019 7:28 am
"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.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 5116
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: ANEKANTAVADA

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Tue Oct 01, 2019 8:53 pm

Lacewing wrote:
Tue Oct 01, 2019 3:57 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Oct 01, 2019 5:53 am
There are many views of reality, i.e. truths.
Agreed! I, personally, DON'T think there is ONE TRUTH to be known/seen, but this does NOT mean that all views are therefore truth. The human realm is full of delusion.

What I've noticed is that DAM makes extreme statements (which I think is her way of trying to have/maintain a sense of knowing about reality, which is also a form of control), THEN -- when her extreme statements are challenged -- she shifts to the opposite, as if to cover all the bases and avoid capture. One minute she'll say there is no one and nothing, and the next minute she'll say it's all bullshit. One minute she KNOWS all of it, and the next minute she'll say none of us know anything. She shifts to avoid accountability.

If there's NO ONE > you can't see/touch her.
If it's ALL bullshit > hers doesn't stand out.
This skitzo dance enables her to make extreme statements with no accountability. I think it's a dishonest way to discuss philosophy because she keeps invalidating herself and her words. Why would anyone take any claim as truth when she's shown over and over that she'll invalidate it (to champion another truth) in the next sentence?

This is why this TOPIC actually seems to be her attempt to justify free license and validity to say ANYTHING -- because EVERY VIEW IS TRUTH, and EVERY PERSON IS TRUTH. Again she presents an extreme, without balance or discernment -- and without balance or discernment, everything becomes meaningless. When everything is meaningless, you can't be held accountable.

All of this seems like a cover for self-indulgent delusion.
So you are saying she is wrong and you are right?

User avatar
Lacewing
Posts: 3351
Joined: Wed Jul 29, 2015 2:25 am

Re: ANEKANTAVADA

Post by Lacewing » Wed Oct 02, 2019 12:19 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Oct 01, 2019 8:53 pm
So you are saying she is wrong and you are right?
Where do I say anything like that?

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 5116
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: ANEKANTAVADA

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Wed Oct 02, 2019 12:20 am

Lacewing wrote:
Wed Oct 02, 2019 12:19 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Oct 01, 2019 8:53 pm
So you are saying she is wrong and you are right?
Where do I say anything like that?
It was a question wasn't it?

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2711
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: ANEKANTAVADA

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Wed Oct 02, 2019 2:59 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Oct 01, 2019 8:53 pm
Lacewing wrote:
Tue Oct 01, 2019 3:57 pm
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Tue Oct 01, 2019 5:53 am
There are many views of reality, i.e. truths.
Agreed! I, personally, DON'T think there is ONE TRUTH to be known/seen, but this does NOT mean that all views are therefore truth. The human realm is full of delusion.

What I've noticed is that DAM makes extreme statements (which I think is her way of trying to have/maintain a sense of knowing about reality, which is also a form of control), THEN -- when her extreme statements are challenged -- she shifts to the opposite, as if to cover all the bases and avoid capture. One minute she'll say there is no one and nothing, and the next minute she'll say it's all bullshit. One minute she KNOWS all of it, and the next minute she'll say none of us know anything. She shifts to avoid accountability.

If there's NO ONE > you can't see/touch her.
If it's ALL bullshit > hers doesn't stand out.
This skitzo dance enables her to make extreme statements with no accountability. I think it's a dishonest way to discuss philosophy because she keeps invalidating herself and her words. Why would anyone take any claim as truth when she's shown over and over that she'll invalidate it (to champion another truth) in the next sentence?

This is why this TOPIC actually seems to be her attempt to justify free license and validity to say ANYTHING -- because EVERY VIEW IS TRUTH, and EVERY PERSON IS TRUTH. Again she presents an extreme, without balance or discernment -- and without balance or discernment, everything becomes meaningless. When everything is meaningless, you can't be held accountable.

All of this seems like a cover for self-indulgent delusion.
So you are saying she is wrong and you are right?
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.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2711
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: ANEKANTAVADA

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Wed Oct 02, 2019 3:05 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Oct 01, 2019 8:52 pm
Dontaskme wrote:
Sun Sep 29, 2019 7:28 am
"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.
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].

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 5116
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: ANEKANTAVADA

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Wed Oct 02, 2019 3:16 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Oct 02, 2019 2:59 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Oct 01, 2019 8:53 pm
Lacewing wrote:
Tue Oct 01, 2019 3:57 pm

Agreed! I, personally, DON'T think there is ONE TRUTH to be known/seen, but this does NOT mean that all views are therefore truth. The human realm is full of delusion.

What I've noticed is that DAM makes extreme statements (which I think is her way of trying to have/maintain a sense of knowing about reality, which is also a form of control), THEN -- when her extreme statements are challenged -- she shifts to the opposite, as if to cover all the bases and avoid capture. One minute she'll say there is no one and nothing, and the next minute she'll say it's all bullshit. One minute she KNOWS all of it, and the next minute she'll say none of us know anything. She shifts to avoid accountability.

If there's NO ONE > you can't see/touch her.
If it's ALL bullshit > hers doesn't stand out.
This skitzo dance enables her to make extreme statements with no accountability. I think it's a dishonest way to discuss philosophy because she keeps invalidating herself and her words. Why would anyone take any claim as truth when she's shown over and over that she'll invalidate it (to champion another truth) in the next sentence?

This is why this TOPIC actually seems to be her attempt to justify free license and validity to say ANYTHING -- because EVERY VIEW IS TRUTH, and EVERY PERSON IS TRUTH. Again she presents an extreme, without balance or discernment -- and without balance or discernment, everything becomes meaningless. When everything is meaningless, you can't be held accountable.

All of this seems like a cover for self-indulgent delusion.
So you are saying she is wrong and you are right?
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.

User avatar
Eodnhoj7
Posts: 5116
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: ANEKANTAVADA

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Wed Oct 02, 2019 3:25 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Oct 02, 2019 3:05 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Oct 01, 2019 8:52 pm
Dontaskme wrote:
Sun Sep 29, 2019 7:28 am
"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.
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.

Veritas Aequitas
Posts: 2711
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 4:41 am

Re: ANEKANTAVADA

Post by Veritas Aequitas » Wed Oct 02, 2019 3:27 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Wed Oct 02, 2019 3:16 am
Veritas Aequitas wrote:
Wed Oct 02, 2019 2:59 am
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Tue Oct 01, 2019 8:53 pm

So you are saying she is wrong and you are right?
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.

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

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

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

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests