Inflate or destroy self?

True, especially if by change I were stressing transformation of one form into another form. I prefer to think of it in terms of changing, of a continous PROCESS of becoming (something else).

You see but the point is that infinity or no infinity, is very, very, important to that equation...believing in motion so bluntly may be your Achilles heel...n then again, maybe your right...

Perhaps. Time may tell.

No, Fresco's response doesn't "help," as he is simply avoiding the question of definitions to suggest that you are entitled to use whatever definitions it pleases you to use, which ignores entirely the point about language as a medium of communication. Dualism as a description is reasonable when the so-called dualism is intentional (as in religion's good versus evil). As an accusation against the thinking of others, or simply an accusation against the cosmos itself (as in the old Buddhist mind-set of states of consciousness versus physical existence)--i cannot accept "dualism" at all.

What you are willing to take seriously is immaterial to me. If you post self-serving nonsense, then i'm going to say you are posting self-serving nonsense.

A conch shell which contains a conch (the animal, the sea snail) and an empty conch shell are, nevertheless, both conch shells. This thread, as is the case with Cyracuz' other thread, is deteriorating into silly word games.

Set, are you suggesting that all insight into the nature of experience be completely constrained by conventions of language? Poetry would sure go down the tube if that were so. And it does seem that both of us are expressing perspectives that are "self"-serving. But "nonsense"? That is unnecessarily coarse of you.
Definitions vary; they are not absolute or always fixed. In Spain, as I understand it, pendejo denotes the upper part of a foot. In Mexico it refers to someone behaving like you.
Ah, coarseness does feel good.

I'm not sure which 'The Frank' he was referring to. I have given a few thumbs up but rarely. I'm sure there was some point to this jab, but it missed me.

Since he acknowledged being mistaken on this point after my response, I am guessing it was addressed to me, Frank.

The point of it mystifies me also.

It is quite funny just how important it became to distinguish between two selfs (the Franks) in a thread going on about no selfs...I for one am glad I can distinguish both !

Right!

I think it depends upon what kind of self-destruction you speak of.

You mean it in a very literal sense that the notion of self is being destroyed, then you are describing something close to what many eastern religions seek.

However, if you take the societal interpretation of the phrase "self-destruction," then you are left with something more malicious. My interpretation of this phrase, in this context, is that someone is doing behaviors that is detrimental to one's own well-being, such as self-harm.

I would say that the latter is a negative view and the former is a positive one.

You’ve been deceived....the 2 off biological reasonings that have led you to the conclusion that SELF is an ILLUSION are your problem.These reasonings are the ILLUSION.What do they know? Its ok though... they cancel each other out at the end of the day.Practicing INWARD meditation ONLY,dismantles SELF.

There is such a thing as OUTWARD meditation as well which builds SELF up. INWARD meditation dismantles SELF. The issue with only practicing INWARD SEARCHING meditation (as an example) is that the two off reasonings of ….is there a God?.... isn't there a GOD? are BOTH looking for PROOF one way or the other.As NO PROOF will be given to either they just cancel each other out. Neither reasoning is practicing FAITH which God requires. BOTH sides of the reasoning debate can only HOPE that there is or isn't a GOD.SELF processes the information but is not the information.If SELF identifies with these reasonings i.e. fully engages with them then there is the danger that SELF is deceived into thinking that he/she is these 2 off reasonings. This is why the Buddhist religion has a common denominator in all its religious sects that SELF is an illusion because of the cancelling out effect.