this is just word play. if you want to assert that One thing exists, ok you can. but it just seems pointless, if its really true that there is NOTHING ELSE outside this one.
Yes it's largely word play on both our parts. I merely maintain that if there's nothing else, which I do, then we are still said to exist. As far as "The One" is concerned, we pantheists see it, Her, the Whole Shebang, is It
…avoiding all the contradiction and paradox of a duality with Her on one side and us on the other
see what do you mean by existing, and not existing. those very concepts necessarily imply some primary existence or form of existence. and within this, things can exist or not exist
Forgive me Car, not sure what you mean here, partly on the grammatical basis, maybe a typo, starting in the middle of a sentence
but if we are saying that everything that could POSSIBLY exist is all one unitary thing, then what is the question of things not existing?
The "oneness" of it all is largely an abstract concept, while the murky phrase "things not existing" leaves me at least in the dark as a kind of contradiction. Clearly, as I had suggested, we're in a kind of semantic impassse
a blanket over all theories, saying that they will always be infinitely complex and ever expanding, but essentially, completely pointless and irrelevant.
I don't know about "infinitely"; while "ever expanding" seems a rash presumption. A given theory gains by new input but its volume diminishes by those abandoned or simplified. So many should remain about the same size while some even shrink or even disappear
…and as to "pointless and irrelevant unless you attach importance to 'what happens' in this 'existence', which is the game of duality
I'd agree the idea of "importance" being utterly divorced from the rest of "reality" is a sort of dualism, just as God on one hand and the Universe on the other
of science, i am simply saying it is operating within a limited framework. human consciousness, and the various presumptions that go with that, such as the assumed primary existence of a physical universe etc.
So deeply abstract and open to interpretation, your Average Clod (me) can't deal with it
But again, I get the feeling, purely intuitive to be sure, that all this is semantics at work. But it would help a lot, Car, if you could reduce your ideas to phraseology using everyday language in the usual grammatical order.
It seems like there's a Universe and we suppose there's nothing else because there's so little evidence for the notion. Of course it looks like there's a whole lot going on, causing electrons, etc, to circulate around our brains in various patterns
Certain ways of looking at all this entails what the philos call "duality," but which is so vague to most of us, that we can't draw any sure conclusions about it
i think what i am speaking of, very few will agree with. it comes down to the idea of control also. in the strictest and deepest sense of nonduality, the idea of having individual volitional control over ANYTHING is proved false.
This sounds like "determinism," a very compelling argument in light of the observation that the more closely we control the conditions of an experiment, the more likely the same result. However the idea of ANYTHING to have been thus proven
seems very dubious
My own view, for what it's wort, not very much hereabout, and I hope this doesn't make me a dualist, is that there's something we don't yet comprehend, that accounts for It All, partly from a present lack of adequate vocabulary. As we come closer and close to understanding It (maybe never entirely), some of us will call It (Her) God while others will staunchly maintain that It doesn't even exist