The Philosophy of the Self.

"Mathematical truth" is a special case and when modelling on such concepts (perpendicular etc) we are basically into "platonic forms". Such forms are reified within a common language as perceptual category labels.

Note that I am not denying "phyical reality" se se. I am denying that there are two different sorts of stuff (physical and mental). We perceive "structure out there" because our own internal structure is wired up and programmed in specific ways...different individuals-different programming....different wiring-different species.

If I later demolish "similarity" and "difference" in my transcendent claims it can be justified within a higher order of "internal coherence" of the emergent model. (Newtons gravitation was not thrown out by Einstein, its range of applicability was curtailed).

As we have said. ...no amount of rhetorical argument will convince the skeptic...its very much a "now I see it" experience...but both quantum mechanics and "non causal" assimilation/accommodation models point in a "scientific way" to what was already advocated in the "mystical tradition".

The logical use of language must be used as a kind of suicidal attempt to transcend itself when talking to people who have, as the buddhists called it, "attached" to their categories such that they see them as real and fixed.

Very frankly, you say you are not endorsing traditional logic, but every statement you have made contradicts that--at least your cognitive "style" when applied to the topic of nondualism is as appropriate as drinking soup with a fork.

You argue RIGHTLY that "nondualism be defended strictly on nondualistic terms".

Unfortunately that is not possible. Language is inherently dualistic (as we've noted many times). But one CAN in a very exotic way communicate nondualistically, as we see in the zen literature where monks engage in quite "meaningless and extralogical" (paradoxical) discussions--a way of demonstrating their non-attachment to reified categories of thought.

joefromchicago wrote:

I'm saying that any effort to explain nondualism by means of dualistic logic is doomed to failure.

How would you know? If in your case it has failed then what are you talking about with your use of the word, "nondualism"? Obviously it's been explained and understood to some extent.

"process" is understood from the dualism of language.

A mystic attempting to indicate nondualism to others has to use a means of understanding that is common to them.

You are, and I am that process and the awareness of it, process = awareness, yet I am beyond it for I am other then a process, or an appearance. I am all and beyond all, (Nisargadatta).

Nondualism is something we're attempting to point to from the mirage of dualism. Meaning, nondualism is a dualist concept. Nondualism is not nondualism. In that sense and seemingly contrary to what has been said on this thread, an understanding of nondualism can only

Or as Advaitic texts puts it, " To understand ones own non-understanding is not true understanding. Rather, not to understand that one understands, that is, the non-understanding of understanding is true understanding" (paraphrased)

My final rejoinder to you is that your (simplistic) usage of "proof" and "faith" with respect to my own answers means you are entrenched at the level of rhetoric. With respect to a transcendent concept of "self," such rhetoric is said to be performed "in sleep".

And as they also say in the tradition "We are pointing at the moon, but you are looking at the pointing finger".

Transcendence is experiential, not intellectual, although it does reshape subsequent intellectuality.

I suppose that the real problem I have with this discussion (and some others) is that non-dualism seems more like a secret society than a valid description of reality. It is talked about in cryptic language, you have to experience it to understand, it cannot be explained to outsiders.

But Joe's response to Tywvel's "To know nondualism is to not know it, it is to BE it" that "[that] is complete and utter nonsense" documents how outside of our frame of reference he is.

I for one understand what Twyvel is saying very well. He is pointing to something that I see, but (as Focus has noted) Joe is looking at his finger and finding it wanting of sense.

Notice that I am not depreciating Joe's logic; I'm merely noting that he misses the point because he is not positioned (i.e., his point of view or perspective) is unsuited for this kind of "understanding".

By the way, when I said that zen dialogue is paradoxical, I should not have described it as "meaningless" (extralogical, yes). It IS meaningful as a flowing mutual communication of epistemological freedom or nondualistic nonattachment to linguistic categories and grammar.

In sum, your "all is one" can only rest on a metaphysical basis, not an epistemological one. And you can no more "prove" your metaphysics by means of logic than I could "prove" the existence of God by the same methods.

One can no more prove the existence of a subject-less universe with subject-dependent logic than one can measure distance with color.

I know that because it is logically impossible. You cannot prove nondualism by using a system of logic that assumes dualism. As I pointed out to fresco, the moment you prove nondualism you disprove your logic.

But don't pretend that it's something other than a metaphysical system, and don't delude yourself into thinking you can "prove" your metaphysics with traditional logic.