Inflate or destroy self?

@fresco,

None of this says much about the question I was asking FN. Are you (Fresco 1, 2, 3, .... n) an idealist monist? I think you used the term "non-dual" (maybe I'm confused here). If you did, what do you mean by "non-dual"? Triple? Quadrupal? Or monal? If monal, what is the world primarily made of? Matter, thought, or something else?

3 Replies

@Olivier5,

Olivier5 wrote:

None of this says much about the question I was asking FN. Are you (Fresco 1, 2, 3, .... n) an idealist monist? I think you used the term "non-dual" (maybe I'm confused here). If you did, what do you mean by "non-dual"? Triple? Quadrupal? Or monal? If monal, what is the world primarily made of? Matter, thought, or something else?

My answer would be, "yes"....and if you didn't buy that, I'd give "no" a go. But Fresco tends to be more expansive in his replies.

Hang on tight.

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

Non-duality is a position which counters dualism like atheism counters theism. It resists labelling perhaps due to its transcendence of language. (see Rorty's attack on labelling in "Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature for more on this). It does not purport to be "a theory" or "a substrate" (see Wittgensteins attack on "theory") rather, it is deconstructive of all such claims, leaving in its wake an experiential quiescence in which the phrenetically active "self" has been seen as some persistant yet lesser cognitive ephinonomenon.

3 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Non-duality is a position which counters dualism like atheism counters theism. It resists labelling perhaps due to its transcendence of language. (see Rorty's attack on labelling in "Philosophy and the Mirror of Nature for more on this). It does not purport to be "a theory" or "a substrate" (see Wittgensteins attack on "theory") rather, it is deconstructive of all such claims, leaving in its wake an experiential quiescence in which the phrenetically active "self" has been seen as some persistant yet lesser cognitive ephinonomenon.

That would be all very well hadn't you have to use logic to attack logic which is clearly impossible, so your claim is absolutely nonsense !
Your "deconstruction" of logic at large attacks the particular logic of your own argument !!!
And you know this is a valid argument, reason why I wonder why you keep insisting on the nonsense...you certainly can see why I think you are a lobby man trying to save your field's approach...

1 Reply

@Olivier5,

And what "the world" is "made of" is reduced to an understanding of the shifting functionality of labelling. Yesterday's flat earth made of "the four elements" became today's satellite of a star made from the periodic table of elements...and may become what ?....an appendage of a n-dimensional entity called a multiverse linked to other appendages through hyperspace made from sub-particulate strings of consciousness ? Wink

Since we've only been doing what we call "science" for a couple of hundred years, it would be somewhat foolish to speculate don't you think?

2 Replies

@fresco,

What the world is, it is right now ! Knowledge of what is, is as irrelevant to what is, as the very meaning of what knowledge means is independent of what I might think or believe knowledge as a concept means if to question the concept I must first assume it...if I don't know about what conceptually Knowledge entails knowledge conceptually didn't cease existing so I can question it...whatever I don't know in the assertion that I don't know already entails knowledge conceptually is !
If knowledge was not possible in any form then we wouldn't even be speaking about knowledge not being possible...simply put all you charade about not knowing reality wont change the unique certain knowledge we have that reality is what it is !

You must LEARN that reality it is the very condition for doubt and thus as doubt proceeds from thought, that thought cannot be the condition of what is real ! (wow this sentence is great)

0 Replies

@Fil Albuquerque,

For "logic" re Piaget read "traditional Aristolean logic base on fixed set membership". Obviously there are other "logics" (e.g. fuzzy logic, or multivalued logic) and we can even play the game of "grammar is logic". To say anything at all involves some form of structuring, hence the fall-back position of ineffability. Shall I try Derrida's textual variations instead ? Smile

1 Reply

@fresco,

Fair fair I can play your game n still make a point...use for instance fuzzy logic or other alternative model to make your claim about deconstructing the "real"...so far all your arguments against classical logic have themselves been done with classical logic...and that is what is not acceptable...give me a working model and I concede you are coherent...you see if properly done I WILL concede unlike you...

1 Reply

@Fil Albuquerque,

I don't quite know what you want here.
Lets just take one example from Merleau-Ponty...the wounded war veteran who both could and could not "salute". When asked by a doctor to salute, the man was unable, but when an officer entered the room the man did so automatically. Mereau-Ponty proposed that "self" (as demonstrated by performance) was an integral part of a contextual Gestalt. There were no "selves" independent of "context". Following Heidegger, "selves" and " observed things" were covariants of each other. Statements about "properties of things" were predictions about co-relationships, NOT independent objects in sets.

Now this is just one illustration of a problem with set based logic. The utility of Merleau-Ponty's "solution" lay with the relative success of his therapies involving "gestalt shifting". And my thesis is based on knowledge of such paradigmatic utility together with "self analysis" with respect to my own modus operandi. I am unaware of an appeal to traditional logic in that.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Hey, don't get me wrong. I have no definitive answer to these questions, just trying to understand what the non-selfers think the world is made of.

To me, selves are non-negotiable. They are a given, empirically THERE. I don't know what they are but that doesn't mean they don't exist. I don't know what matter is either.

0 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

Statements about "properties of things" were predictions about co-relationships, NOT independent objects in sets.
I am unaware of an appeal to traditional logic in that.

Those correlations from which phenomena is said to emerge form themselves a category which needs a property exists without justification...relating is the property at bedrock itself...if such set is a causal loop and a finite one you still have in the ensemble a collection of phenomena which are not caused by anything else, if relating as a property is not itself justified in anything else...none of the said property's of phenomena in the correlation they emerge from can be said to be caused by that correlation, but only that there is coincidence...time is irrelevant here. X number of phenomena are experientially being observed and cannot be traced back to any justification...in that sense phenomena have ontological properties..."phenomena" ends up being the assumption a simulated relation of properties is "cause" to more properties but in the end you only have a finite looping set going on...A,B,C,D...how have you demonstrated such group is false in classical logic ?

0 Replies

@fresco,

Quote:

Non-duality is a position which counters dualism like atheism counters theism.

Atheists have an idea about how many gods there are (0). There are also polytheists who believe in many gods, and they also counter theism. You apparently have no clue how many substances there are in the world, except that you don't like the number 2, for some odd reason.

Wittgensteins attack on "theory" is a theory. I suspect he was just trying to piss off Popper.

Quote:

some persistant yet lesser cognitive ephinonomenon.

Okay. I guess I shouldn't expect too much of an epiphenomenon... What could they know?

2 Replies

@fresco,

Quote:

Since we've only been doing what we call "science" for a couple of hundred years, it would be somewhat foolish to speculate don't you think?

So why do you speculate it's not made of 2 substances, e.g. matter and spirit? Are you being foolish?

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

Quote:

Wittgensteins attack on "theory" is a theory. I suspect he was just trying to piss off Popper.

No. He was talking about "philosophical theories". Philosophy "explains nothing" yet can "solve" so called "philosophical problems" by dissolving them.
The word "theory" belongs in "scientific language games", not philosophical
ones.

Quote:

So why do you speculate it's not made of 2 substances, e.g. matter and spirit? Are you being foolish?

Not a clue what you are talking about there. The words "made" , "matter" and "spirit" have no assigned meaning in non-dualistic paradigm. The are mere words or communicative tokens between speakers with an agreed context. Words like coins are the currency of transactions and their value is subject to shifts.

3 Replies

@fresco,

Of course Philosophy explains it just not proves within the scientific paradigm...and of course it has theories they just don't require any more proof then self consistent statements about the possible state of affairs of the world...

0 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

They are mere words or communicative tokens between speakers with an agreed context. Words like coins are the currency of transactions and their value is subject to shifts.

Bad for bad so the terms "communication", "coins" "transaction", n "speakers", are subjected to the same deconstruction...your theory shoots itself in the foot !

0 Replies

@fresco,

Quote:

Not a clue what you are talking about there. The words "made" , "matter" and "spirit" have no meaning in non-dualistic paradigm. The are mere words or communicative tokens between speakers with an agreed context. Words like coins are the currency of transactions and their value is subject to shifts.

Do the words "non-dualistic" and "paradigm" have a meaning in a non-dualistic paradigm? Or are they just coins?

How about the words you used above: word, or, communicative, token, between, speaker, with, a, agreed, context? Do they have a meaning?

Cause if they don't, why do you say things that mean nothing?

Edit: no no no. I know what you mean. You're saying that any word I use can easily be discarded as having "no meaning in a non-dual paradigm", and thus you don't need to consider them, let alone answer them, BUT anything YOU say is evidently VERY MUCH meaningful in your paradigm...

Unfortunately, it can't be so easy. You should be able to critically review your paradigm, and to do that, you should be able to language that trancend your paradigm, that is in meta position to it. Language that can ask questions such as: why NOT a dualistic, two-substence, matter+spirit world?

2 Replies

@Olivier5,

Okay. I accept your withdrawal from further fruitful discussion. I congratulate you on your stamina irrespective of the quality towards the end.

Regards fresco.

1 Reply

@fresco,

And I accept your surrender.

But I shouldn't boast really, cause winning against an epiphenomenon is just too easy.

0 Replies

@Olivier5,

I just voted you up on that post before the edit...take it off (the edited part) you are tired...you are letting him get past obvious criticism for no reason has he obviously gives serious credit to is own critic as valid... it is not the case that he exposes a view like he was telling a tale...he is giving serious credit and merit to the descontructionist critic like if it was an unquestionable truth...of course on his own account he has no more reason to do that then we do to do the opposite... Wink

2 Replies

Inflate or destroy self?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know