Defining and describing non-duality

[jufa]

But by saying what we can't know about reality empirically, we are in turn affirming what it is we can know about it, logically.

This is not true, for if it has not been experienced by observation, or as an activity of experience, then it cannot logical in mind. Just as a statemente above which says nirvana has no nature. Nirvana cannot be intellectually conceptualized, and is nota stepping block to enter into ones nirvana because concepts, opions, theories, ideas of intellect must be eliminated to eliminate the material of mattered thoughts which formed the circled structued which human thoughts are made of, and which can never see or comprehend anything beyond themselves.

Human thoughts are the solid objectification which are built upon human outer objective views, and inner subjective feelings of dualism. They are at odds with one another and cannot intellectualize the power to comprehend anything other than themselves.

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

[guest_of_logic]

Anders,

Your questions and statements of my position seem to be leaving out something important. For example, this is not what I'm arguing:

"1: That you can reasonably disagree that 'Ultimate(or Absolute) Truth indeed qualifies as such."

I'm arguing instead (additions italicised):

"1: That you can reasonably disagree that what David claims to be Ultimate(or Absolute) Truth indeed qualifies as such."

The following questions are missing something similar:

"Do you know that is it reasonable to to say that Truth/Reality is not Ultimate? Do you not know if Truth/Reality is Ultimate or not? or do you know that it is?"

To answer meaningfully I would need you to rephrase the questions like this (additions again italicised):

"Do you know that is it reasonable to to say that David's version of Truth/Reality is not Ultimate? Do you not know if David's version of Truth/Reality is Ultimate or not? or do you know that it is?"

In answer to your prompt, "if somebody 'reasonably' disagrees, there should be a reason to dismiss the notion", I refer you to my past writings on this forum, particularly in the recent threads, "Arbitrary absolutism: the values of the house philosophy", and "Deaf to non-duality!" For your convenience, though, I'll summarise my position here:
1. David's version of Ultimate Truth does not qualify as such because it has no meaningful answer to such ultimate questions as "Why does reality exist at all?" and "Why does reality exist in the way that it does?" - the closest that it gets is the insistent "It just is!"
2. Much of David's version of Ultimate Truth is in fact merely one perspective, and one focus, among the many that are possible, and as such it is not in fact the "Ultimate Truth" that he represents it to be: for example, he focuses on the arbitrariness of boundaries, creating a perspective in which existence is illusory, whereas it is possible to instead focus on the inherent differentiation in reality and create instead a perspective in which identity is key.

I imagine that if I devoted more energy to it I could come up with other reasonable disagreements.

It would look like that if you choose to view this only through the lens of power, as you seem to be doing.

I do see a lot of power dynamics in operation on this forum.

Another option could be that he doesn't want to objectify something that is not objective, particularly when you are constantly asking for a clear, objective answer.

But you and Ryan proved later in the thread that clarity on this issue is possible. David chose instead to wave his hands around mystically.

I run into so many people who are unwilling to expose themselves to themselves or to others. If they did the facade might fall away. And so they are comfortable saying, "Oh, but there is SO MUCH that we don't know!" And how strange it is that THEY are the ones coming up with answers! But they won't tell you specifically what those are.

I don't know what you mean by people who say there's much that we don't know being the ones coming up with answers.

The product here is consciousness and awareness. It is the best product you could possibly buy. Some people have made up their minds, though. They've decided that, "This is my reality and I will not allow ANYTHING to change it!"

The product is also a perspective on reality, which can reasonably be disputed as qualifying as Ultimate Truth.

Consciousness is the taking away of need. People think they need their toys and will fight you if you try to take them away. They have forgotten that they don't really need anything at all.

It would be great to have no needs. I'm not sure whether that's possible or not, but I'm not going to simply take your word for it.

Words are Reality too. Everything is.

Words are not Reality. Words are words, oddly enough. If words were Reality, then Reality would be words, and that's kinda silly.

My point was that words are as much a part of reality as anything else is. I see by your later responses that by capitalising reality you meant it as a synonym for Totality, and of course I wouldn't try to argue that words are identical with Totality.

[Blair]

Human thoughts are the solid objectification which are built upon human outer objective views, and inner subjective feelings of dualism. They are at odds with one another and cannot intellectualize the power to comprehend anything other than themselves.

The Totality reveals itself through the prism of pure awareness, in the absence of thought (the mechanism that analyses awareness).

[Diebert van Rhijn]

The Totality reveals itself through the prism of pure awareness, in the absence of thought (the mechanism that analyses awareness).

Best to point out this prime revelation is itself the prism, is itself pure, is itself awareness. And reason, thought, analysis sprouts forward from this root, in this world, makes this world. Therefore in this worlds there's never really absence of thought, only modes of relative quietude providing some live room to grow. But without world where would ones awareness rest?

[Robert]

"Why does reality exist at all?"

Diebert said it so well I saved it as a text file for these very occasions:

"The axiom of existence: that something exists and not not-exists. It comes before the "why".

As logic cannot go further than the axioms it's based on, the question "why" cannot address existence. This does not annihilate logic, it only shows how logic is the consequence of having existence of anything at all."

Mind you, I don't expect such a concise resolution of the question will find lasting (if any) resonance with Laird.

[jufa]

"Why does reality exist at all?"

Diebert said it so well I saved it as a text file for these very occasions:

"The axiom of existence: that something exists and not not-exists. It comes before the "why".

As logic cannot go further than the axioms it's based on, the question "why" cannot address existence. This does not annihilate logic, it only shows how logic is the consequence of having existence of anything at all."

Mind you, I don't expect such a concise resolution of the question will find lasting (if any) resonance with Laird.

What is missed or overlooked here is that in order to have a theorem there must be questionable object, whether invisible or visible before hand. The why is correctly stated here because the object is existence.

What therefore is logic to question why when there is no logic for existence established, existence however is an absolute. So why is also the question put forth as to why there is logical existence when there is no logic for existence.

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

[guest_of_logic]

"Why does reality exist at all?"

Diebert said it so well I saved it as a text file for these very occasions:

"The axiom of existence: that something exists and not not-exists. It comes before the "why".

As logic cannot go further than the axioms it's based on, the question "why" cannot address existence. This does not annihilate logic, it only shows how logic is the consequence of having existence of anything at all."

Mind you, I don't expect such a concise resolution of the question will find lasting (if any) resonance with Laird.

You're right, Robert: it doesn't find resonance with me. It comes across to me as sophistry. Perhaps I can explain best by adjusting it slightly:

"The axiom of Robert's existence: that Robert exists and not not-exists. It comes before the "why" [of Robert's existence].

As logic cannot go further than the axioms it's based on, the question "why" cannot address Robert's existence."

I doubt that you would actually argue that we can't ask "why" of your existence, and yet the reasoning is the same. Following this reasoning of Diebert's, we can put many things beyond logic that rightfully ought not to be.

[Blair]

Laird still thinks the Truth comes wrapped in Tinsel, not Brown Paper.

[Blair]

The Totality reveals itself through the prism of pure awareness, in the absence of thought (the mechanism that analyses awareness).

Best to point out this prime revelation is itself the prism, is itself pure, is itself awareness. And reason, thought, analysis sprouts forward from this root, in this world, makes this world. Therefore in this worlds there's never really absence of thought, only modes of relative quietude providing some live room to grow. But without world where would ones awareness rest?

Fair enough, you articulated it a tad clearer than I. :)

I was being idealistic in describing the absence of thought possibility. If you have been there, you would never know, or would possibly be dead.

[Robert]

"Why does reality exist at all?"

Diebert said it so well I saved it as a text file for these very occasions:

"The axiom of existence: that something exists and not not-exists. It comes before the "why".

As logic cannot go further than the axioms it's based on, the question "why" cannot address existence. This does not annihilate logic, it only shows how logic is the consequence of having existence of anything at all."

Mind you, I don't expect such a concise resolution of the question will find lasting (if any) resonance with Laird.

You're right, Robert: it doesn't find resonance with me. It comes across to me as sophistry. Perhaps I can explain best by adjusting it slightly:

"The axiom of Robert's existence: that Robert exists and not not-exists. It comes before the "why" [of Robert's existence].

As logic cannot go further than the axioms it's based on, the question "why" cannot address Robert's existence."

I doubt that you would actually argue that we can't ask "why" of your existence, and yet the reasoning is the same. Following this reasoning of Diebert's, we can put many things beyond logic that rightfully ought not to be.

But you're not asking about a particular thing, you're asking about reality itself - "why does reality exist at all?". Big difference. Big enough that even to ask it is considered blasphemy :)

[skipair]

I do see a lot of power dynamics in operation on this forum.

It's hard to avoid that given the human condition - the emotional need for attention in one form or another. Everyone has someone or something in their life that they are sensitive with.

But in things like science and pure reason where there really isn't a place for that, we just do the best we can. It's particularly hard here because of the personal nature of everything. It's not about understanding a system of concepts or verifying empirical evidence. It's dredging up your inner emotions and looking at them fully rationally, and that makes things a bit rough and hot at times.

But you and Ryan proved later in the thread that clarity on this issue is possible. David chose instead to wave his hands around mystically.

Tell me if you see it differently, but I don't think that my saying another word or two on the matter did any more clarifying other than give you more things to slot in a "House Philosophy Word/Concept System" file, and continue to look outward for congruency between the terms.

It doesn't work like that, or course. You have to look down and in. Involve the spirit in the honesty and do introspection.

I don't know what you mean by people who say there's much that we don't know being the ones coming up with answers.

In my experience, people say things like that when they begin to feel the fragility of the false inner beliefs that are propping up their self-esteem and their inability to be truly alone with themselves.

If they instead said, "I can single handedly determine the truth value of something, and I will no longer live as if it's true if I find that it's not"...then they would start to be responsible for their world and would necessarily risk giving up their delusions. Which is difficult to do.

The product is also a perspective on reality, which can reasonably be disputed as qualifying as Ultimate Truth.

As I see it, it is the exact opposite of a perspective on reality. It is NO particular perspective. It is actually Ultimate Untruth.

It would be great to have no needs. I'm not sure whether that's possible or not, but I'm not going to simply take your word for it.

At the very least, I'd suggest that it's beneficial for the imagination to conceive of no needs and create an emotional habit of going back to that when useful. Whether it's logic that makes that space, or the making of that space allows for more logic, I'm not sure. But the ability to look upon the earth without ANY human values, without ANY humanity and to just think logically about things is a useful tool in my experience. Not something that I'd recommend for myself to use all the time if I want to be emotionally healthy, but it has its place.

Also, as an aside, I don't think that it would be 'great' to have no need. It would be nothing and would be death. Greatness, as far as I can tell, is being responsible for and fulfilling your primary needs, not pretending they aren't there. And I think we all work on that.

[Robert]

What therefore is logic to question why when there is no logic for existence established, existence however is an absolute. So why is also the question put forth as to why there is logical existence when there is no logic for existence.

Which is in principle a more plausible question to find possible answers to; finding reasons for the 'how' of consciousness may lead us to the 'why'. Of course, both those how and why answers will always be in the real of the empirical.

[guest_of_logic]

But you're not asking about a particular thing, you're asking about reality itself - "why does reality exist at all?". Big difference.

Big difference, yes, but not one that's dealt with by the reasoning that you presented.

In any case, I acknowledge that it's at the very least a difficult, puzzling question, and I don't have any good handle on how it might be answered myself, all I know is that the house philosophy doesn't have an answer - at best it has a non-answer.

Big enough that even to ask it is considered blasphemy :)

I'm happy to be considered a GF heretic. :-)

Tell me if you see it differently, but I don't think that my saying another word or two on the matter did any more clarifying other than give you more things to slot in a "House Philosophy Word/Concept System" file, and continue to look outward for congruency between the terms.

How I see it is that David wrote in obscure faux-mystical terms that gave me no referent on how non-duality relates to the rest of the house philosophy, whereas you and Ryan keyed me in to the principles in the house philosophy with which I'm already familiar that form the basis of what "you guys" mean by "non-duality".

If they instead said, "I can single handedly determine the truth value of something, and I will no longer live as if it's true if I find that it's not"...then they would start to be responsible for their world and would necessarily risk giving up their delusions. Which is difficult to do.

The problem with this approach is its hubris. There are so many ways in which we can misjudge truth that to assume that we have definitively found it is foolish. Of course, as I've argued elsewhere, we have to make truth judgements all of the time in the course of living active lives, but elevating these judgements to "absolute truth" as opposed to the more reasonable "provisional [or, if we must, 'confident'] belief" is a bad idea.

Laird: The product is also a perspective on reality, which can reasonably be disputed as qualifying as Ultimate Truth.

Skip: As I see it, it is the exact opposite of a perspective on reality. It is NO particular perspective. It is actually Ultimate Untruth.

I think you're kidding yourself: "Totality", "arbitrary boundaries", "a thing is caused by that which it is not", "A=A", etc - all of these combine to form a definitive perspective on reality.

Also, as an aside, I don't think that it would be 'great' to have no need. It would be nothing and would be death. Greatness, as far as I can tell, is being responsible for and fulfilling your primary needs, not pretending they aren't there. And I think we all work on that.

I see where you're coming from, but where I'm coming from is that needs are externally imposed, whereas if we had no needs we could choose our pleasures for ourselves. Perhaps we'd choose the same pleasures that came from what had formerly been the fulfillment of our needs - who knows? - but at least we'd have the choice. Freedom, baby, freedom!

[Robert]

But you're not asking about a particular thing, you're asking about reality itself - "why does reality exist at all?". Big difference.

Big difference, yes, but not one that's dealt with by the reasoning that you presented.

In any case, I acknowledge that it's at the very least a difficult, puzzling question, and I don't have any good handle on how it might be answered myself, all I know is that the house philosophy doesn't have an answer - at best it has a non-answer.

As has already been said, a "non-answer" is actually an answer when you understand why you've taken your reasoning as far as it can go. From that point, keeping your mind open to the possibility that there's any further reason can take you with this question might seem like a reasonable position to be in, but in reality you'd basically just be entertaining logical fallacies. Which, btw, is a perfectly fine thing to do if your aim isn't rigour and clarity of thought.

[guest_of_logic]

As has already been said, a "non-answer" is actually an answer when you understand why you've taken your reasoning as far as it can go. From that point, keeping your mind open to the possibility that there's any further reason can take you with this question might seem like a reasonable position to be in, but in reality you'd basically just be entertaining logical fallacies. Which, btw, is a perfectly fine thing to do if your aim isn't rigour and clarity of thought.

You seem to be assuming that any answer beyond this non-answer could be arrived at through reason. I'm not at all convinced that it could: it might be that we don't have sufficient information or understanding to arrive at an answer through reason.

In any case, the non-answer of the house philosophy - as a tautology - isn't exactly rigorous: "it is because it is". It's like something you'd say off-hand to a child when you didn't know the answer to their question.

Look, I understand that folk around here go in for the idea that the absence of the possibility of an external cause means that the case is closed, but the truth is that such a perspective leaves legitimate questions unanswered. There are different ways of getting at the same idea - I expressed one of them in the "Arbitrary absolutism" thread; another is that old chestnut, "Why is there something rather than nothing?" It's logically possible for there not to have been a reality, and the house philosophy's non-answer can't explain why reality instead is the case. Here's how it goes with the house philosophers, distilled to its essence:

Questioner: Why is there something rather than nothing?
House philosopher: There just is.
Questioner: Hmm. So then why does reality exist at all?
House philosopher: Reality exists because it exists.
Questioner: Wha..? OK, so then why does reality as a whole have the properties that it has and not some other set of properties?
House philosopher: It has those properties because it has those properties.

I mean, come on, Robert, you can't tell me that you take an exchange like that seriously.

[Robert]

You seem to be assuming that any answer beyond this non-answer could be arrived at through reason.

No, I'm not assuming that, quite the opposite in fact. I mean, I imagine you've stopped playing with the toys you had when you were a kid, right? (... Right?) :)

I mean, come on, Robert, you can't tell me that you take an exchange like that seriously.

You're right Laird, I wouldn't take an exchange like that seriously, since (the way you frame it at least) it's a superficial representation of what the arguments and reasoning that support such a conclusion actually are.

I did read through the other thread "Arbitrary... " over the last couple of days (I've been away for a while). To me, it's immensely ironic that you accuse some 'folk around here' of hubris. Thanks anyway for the laughs!

[jufa]

What therefore is logic to question why when there is no logic for existence established, existence however is an absolute. So why is also the question put forth as to why there is logical existence when there is no logic for existence.

Which is in principle a more plausible question to find possible answers to; finding reasons for the 'how' of consciousness may lead us to the 'why'. Of course, both those how and why answers will always be in the real of the empirical.

In this thread I have found effects are dealt with but cause is ignored. Why, when, what, where, who should be, speaking only for myself, the base which establish how.

As has been noted, the question why has been dismissed as out of place. I find this is because the Principle of order of navigatation which gives reasoning and logic for effect of belief in dualsim being real has no Principle which can establish the house philosophy, nor any other philosophy of dual and non-dualism, which is being presented here, as being anything other than a fallacy based on personal interpretation within the circle of a metaphoracal circle of myth, not knowledge. It is the same with all the formulas being thrown out and around in this thread.

Whithout a Principle being established as to Causation, conversations of effects dealing with dialogues of dual and non-dualism are arbitrary applications without mortar not only incapable of holding things in place, but things without substance to build upon. This is why this conversation can go no further than it has, and why logic and reasoning as to cause is totally being ignored.

Never give power to anything a person believes is their source of strength - jufa

[skipair]

If they instead said, "I can single handedly determine the truth value of something, and I will no longer live as if it's true if I find that it's not"...then they would start to be responsible for their world and would necessarily risk giving up their delusions. Which is difficult to do.

The problem with this approach is its hubris. There are so many ways in which we can misjudge truth that to assume that we have definitively found it is foolish. Of course, as I've argued elsewhere, we have to make truth judgements all of the time in the course of living active lives, but elevating these judgements to "absolute truth" as opposed to the more reasonable "provisional [or, if we must, 'confident'] belief" is a bad idea.

I've found this to be true when making models of the world and seeing through particular perspectives. But there are ways to make absolute truth judgments without hubris, and you do that by recognizing the structural principles that all particular models and perspectives are built on.

I think you're kidding yourself: "Totality", "arbitrary boundaries", "a thing is caused by that which it is not", "A=A", etc - all of these combine to form a definitive perspective on reality.

Not exactly. These are the logical, structural rules that thinking necessarily follows. Sometimes people will take content and build perspectives, models, and views, and they will arrogantly declare one of them as absolutely true, when, at best, it might only qualify as extremely practical, which is the best you can do with any perspective.

The difference between the person who is really aware of what they are doing when defining their terms (and so has some sensitivity to those things you just listed) and the person who is not aware of those things is just a subtle difference. Both will get up, eat food, take a shower and do whatever it is they do throughout the day. But the subtle difference is that their entire context of how they view meaning itself has shifted. It is a total paradigm shift that is not particular to one view, be it a practical one or otherwise. Before ANY views come into being the change is already there. It is more fundamental than particular content...it is the "absolute truth" of being aware of how structure holds content.

This shouldn't necessarily be that amazing, but apparently when humans aren't specifically aware of this, it's easy to think things are different than they are (as supposed to impermanent, not-inherent, etc).

I see where you're coming from, but where I'm coming from is that needs are externally imposed, whereas if we had no needs we could choose our pleasures for ourselves. Perhaps we'd choose the same pleasures that came from what had formerly been the fulfillment of our needs - who knows? - but at least we'd have the choice. Freedom, baby, freedom!

Fuck yeahhhhhh! I would try to take pleasure in e-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n-g.

[mensa-maniac]

How do you define non-duality?
How do you describe non-duality in detail?
How do you argue for non-duality?

One image that could help is to picture a white perfectly even surface with as only other presence a tiny black dot. Realize that by removing the black dot, you wouldn't be able to picture 'white surface' unless one introduces shadows, seams, edges, etc. Put the black dot back and the white surface becomes obvious. Remove the black dot and the whiteness becomes "everything". Did it even exist? How would one argue for the perfect surface?

Mensa says: This is spot on Diebert--an excellent defining!

[jupiviv]

Anyone who wants to understand non-duality should diligently read this thread. None of the people here(except me, of course) have any clue what they are talking about(which is why the discussion has spanned 6 pages,) but all of them are in the same thread!

[pegasus]

How do you define non-duality?
How do you describe non-duality in detail?
How do you argue for non-duality?
What are the implications of non-duality, in general and for the way that you live/approach your life?

non-duality is the oscillatory process of becoming one with objects through constant integration. The implication of this is a gradual loss of identity by adding new constants. Intuition is discorded in series.

Non-dual communication = Probing the resolution of words and expressing the collective subconscious without even knowing what you are saying. It is talking and not talking at the same time after thinking and not thinking in the previous moment.