1
   

What is human?

 
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Wed 21 Jan, 2004 06:08 pm
truth
Twyvel, on second thought, I might have reservations about your statement--"if X and Y are 'one' they are not the 'same', same implies two."
Don't you think that the unity of all things includes diversity and multiplicity? I and my car are one, yet we are not UN-different. Am I missing something here?
0 Replies
 
twyvel
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jan, 2004 05:01 am
Good point JLNobody

Are you asking, Does the unity of all things include the non-unity of all things. I guess we have to say yes. From nondualism there is no distinction between dualism and nondualism. Dualism is the "as if" game played out on the nondual stage. There is action "as if" you-as-body and you-as-car are two, knowing they are not. And the >knowing they are not two< is neither distinct nor not distinct from >not knowing they are not two<.


You and your car are not UN-different nor different nor non-different

X and Y are neither one nor two, neither the same or not the same.

But my first intuitive response was, there is no time for X and Y to be not-one. "Difference' is duration. "Neither difference nor non-difference",... is non-temporal.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jan, 2004 11:57 am
truth
Twyvel, your very well put phrase--"Dualism is the 'as-if' game [I would say 'fiction'] played out on the non-dual stage"--would, if understood by Joe, Terry and Frank, on the Absolute Determinism thread, save us a lot of trouble when trying to portray the nature of self. Since they confuse non-fiction and fiction on the stage, our efforts remain downright bizzare to them.
Your post further helps me to understand the zen master's statement that better than "one" is "not-two."
In saying that in unity there is multiplicity I was stressing that in unity there is not sameness. Too often people think of unity as a monolithlic block of some kind within which there can be no variabililty. Therefore, when faced with the variability (diversity, multiplicity) in their experience, they instinctively reject the unity that is also right before their eyes.
0 Replies
 
rufio
 
  1  
Reply Thu 22 Jan, 2004 12:26 pm
No, I'm not saying that we're all identical, JL. Just like a pocket watch is different from an atomic clock, but they would both be classified the same way - as timepieces. Animals and humans are different, but of the same type. To call tutles and elephants and cheetahs animals but not humans is like calling pocket watches and sundials and wall clocks timepieces, but not atomic clocks.
0 Replies
 
Terry
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jan, 2004 09:06 am
JLN, if I thought that you meant "unity" in the sense that we are all descended from the same one-celled organism, made of the same stardust, all connected by quantum forces in the same universe, and have an ethical/spiritual duty to refrain from causing unnecessary pain to any other lifeform or damaging the ecosystem on which it depends, I would agree with you.

But from what I have read/heard of non-dualism, it is just not logical to assert that we are not separate individuals, each with our own awareness and our own limitations and abilities depending on what kind of brain we were born with.

Reptiles lack the limbic and neocortical structures that generate emotion and logical thinking. Ants do not think at all, chemically or otherwise. Mammals have brains similar to ours, but even primates cannot match our language and problem-solving abilities.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jan, 2004 09:12 am
Terry wrote:
But from what I have read/heard of non-dualism, it is just not logical to assert that we are not separate individuals, each with our own awareness and our own limitations and abilities depending on what kind of brain we were born with.


If I may, Terry, I want to second your thought here...but...I have to make a minor adjustment before doing so.

I have no problem with JL, Twyvel, or Fresco presenting their non-dualism as a belief, guess, or theory.

But Twyvel...and to a lesser extent, Fresco and JL...present it as TRUTH.

With the minor consideration that it CAN BE logical to assert whatever they want as a belief, guess or theory...I AGREE WITH YOU COMPLETELY.
0 Replies
 
JLNobody
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jan, 2004 12:18 pm
truth
Terry, thanks for a very clear statement, something that can be understood and responded to. Let me ask you: Do you really believe that we disagree with, or deny, the "facts" you have just recited? You will never understand our perspective until you realize that it "transcends" but includeds the distinctions you have made. Unity is made up of all your "disunities." The mere fact that we are communiciating right now, despite our differences in location, opinions, dna, etc. etc. reflects our unity. If we were truly distinct and separate, we would not be capable of this contact; we would be more like the parallel but different universes/realms/whatever/ hypothesized by some theoretical physicists. Even their distinct universes appear to me to be aspects of a unity--that may be seen as a "belief" but I see it as a "perspective." This distinction is not easy to clarify. I guess it is something as fundamental as your tacit assumption that you are inside your body and everthing else (the total set of non-you's) is outside. You don't just believe it to be so; you perceive it to be so. I don't.
0 Replies
 
rufio
 
  1  
Reply Fri 23 Jan, 2004 05:02 pm
I know they don't, Terry. But we don't have the physical sturdiness of ants to carry god-knows-how-many times our weight on our backs, we don't have the ability of reptiles to hide under things or of snakes to travel without cumbersome legs - our bodies are poorly designed, predisposing us to arthritis, back pain, leg problems, hip problems, corns, etc. We support a relatively large brain on a relatively slender upright form - we walk on only two of our limbs, unlike most primates, and are therefore very slow and not well-balanced... our fingers are useful, but our toes can be used only for balance that we so desperately need anyway. And then there's carpal tunnell syndrome.... the list goes on. We are not all around "better" than other animals, we've made our trade-offs. Animals don't have our specializations, just like no animal but an elephant has a trunk. That doesn't mean that human beings aren't animals, any more than it means that elephants aren't animals.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
morals and ethics, how are they different? - Question by existential potential
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
 
  1. Forums
  2. » What is human?
  3. » Page 3
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.06 seconds on 12/03/2021 at 04:51:47