morality, drugs, existence

I love it ! A guy like Fil with all the answers in a pact with a guy like Frank with no answers...and their only thing in common ? ...an inability to communicate about the experience of non duality because they haven't had it !

3 Replies

@fresco,

I have no answers, in turn I have personnel opinions and take risks when expressing them publicly often against my best interest !

I am glad you love it ! Cool

0 Replies

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

I love it ! A guy like Fil with all the answers in a pact with a guy like Frank with no answers...and their only thing in common ? ...an inability to communicate about the experience of non duality because they haven't had it !

I'm honest enough to acknowledge that non-duality may not be so. You, and the other non-dualists here, seem to think that because you guess non-duality prevails...then non-duality prevails.

Me...I do not know the true nature of the REALITY of existence.

I am delighted you guys think you do.

In fact, I get a kick out of it.

1 Reply

So, carnaticmastery is a non-dualist? I thought he was against it based upon the OP. Guess not.

His idea of non-dualism is idiosyncratic, imo.

1 Reply

@fresco,

fresco wrote:

I love it ! A guy like Fil with all the answers in a pact with a guy like Frank with no answers...and their only thing in common ? ...an inability to communicate about the experience of non duality because they haven't had it !

Well, Frank does know one thing (correct me if I'm wrong, Frank): whatever is... is. It's a good start. A lot of people don't know that. And, yes, I'm serious.

Fil... well sometimes I don't know what you're talking about. XD

I once had the experience of non-duality, and became a biological perpetual motion machine (autopoietic). Since that contradicted the second law of thermodynamics, I quickly fell into disorder. Heh.

3 Replies

@Ding an Sich,

Ding an Sich wrote:

fresco wrote:

I love it ! A guy like Fil with all the answers in a pact with a guy like Frank with no answers...and their only thing in common ? ...an inability to communicate about the experience of non duality because they haven't had it !

Well, Frank does know one thing (correct me if I'm wrong, Frank): whatever is... is. It's a good start. A lot of people don't know that. And, yes, I'm serious.

Thanks for mentioning that, Ding. And you got it right!

I am reasonably confident that whatever IS...IS. I cannot think of anyway that whatever IS...isn't.

Quote:

Fil... well sometimes I don't know what you're talking about. XD

I once had the experience of non-duality, and became a biological perpetual motion machine (autopoietic). Since that contradicted the second law of thermodynamics, I quickly fell into disorder. Heh.

I think I may have experienced non-duality once also. It was during a session with one of the go-go dancers from a club where I worked. She was doing this thing with...ahhh...well, maybe it is not best to go into details. But in a general sense, she was working two things at the same time and making it feel as though it was just one thing.

But that is as close to actually experiencing non-duality as I think I've ever gotten.

Jeez...you gotta wonder what these guys are experiencing if non-duality is not the REALITY. Can't imagine it is something more satisfying than that session I was talking about.

1 Reply

@Ding an Sich,

Quote:

I once had the experience of non-duality

I have that all the time. As does everyone. It's a matter of perspective and understanding, as I see it. Sometimes we take things apart to find meaning, and other times the only meaning is found in the thing as a whole.

A rather crude analogy would be a melody. You can't learn it without taking it note for note and getting familiar with it. But once that is done, you won't be able to play it properly if you focus on each note one at a time. In the learning, the approach is dualistic, and in the playing, it's non-dualistic. In this particular context.
In another context the whole melody is just a part of something lager, and that larger thing only comes about when each of the musicians focuses on their part. To the audience the music is 'one thing', but to those making it, it's a true mess of processes and effort coming together.

Another way to approach non-dualism is through the concept of 'perfect action', which is any action that you are so immersed in that for the duration of that action you are not thinking of what you are doing, but merely acting as a seamless part of the overall process. Most of the time, breathing is such an action, and it doesn't really take much effort not to think about breathing.
But it can take considerable effort not to think about what you are doing if you are on a stage with hundreds of onlookers. And anyone who has done anything where there was pressure to perform involved knows that if you get self conscious it will affect your performance.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
I once had the experience of non-duality

I have that all the time. As does everyone. It's a matter of perspective and understanding, as I see it. Sometimes we take things apart to find meaning, and other times the only meaning is found in the thing as a whole.

A rather crude analogy would be a melody. You can't learn it without taking it note for note and getting familiar with it. But once that is done, you won't be able to play it properly if you focus on each note one at a time. In the learning, the approach is dualistic, and in the playing, it's non-dualistic. In this particular context.
In another context the whole melody is just a part of something lager, and that larger thing only comes about when each of the musicians focuses on their part. To the audience the music is 'one thing', but to those making it, it's a true mess of processes and effort coming together.

Another way to approach non-dualism is through the concept of 'perfect action', which is any action that you are so immersed in that for the duration of that action you are not thinking of what you are doing, but merely acting as a seamless part of the overall process. Most of the time, breathing is such an action, and it doesn't really take much effort not to think about breathing.
But it can take considerable effort not to think about what you are doing if you are on a stage with hundreds of onlookers. And anyone who has done anything where there was pressure to perform involved knows that if you get self conscious it will affect your performance.

Christians very often talk themselves into thinking they have experienced GOD.

That does not mean they have experienced GOD...it just means they think they have.

Apply that to non-Dualists who think they have experienced...whatever it is that makes them think they have experienced non-dualism.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Perhaps, Frank. Though that has nothing to do with what I am talking about here. But I don't expect you to understand that, seeing as how you are only interested in disrupting constructive threads.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

You DO state things with certainty.

you don't understand the word 'certainty', or 'subjective', obviously. please enrol in some english classes.

Quote:

"i never asserted anything as certainty."...is stated with certainty.

yes, in your opinion. it could be stated as speculation also.

Quote:

You really are new at this, aren't you?

the idea of new implies time.

Quote:

And obviously you think non-duality is a certainty.

no, it is anti-certainty.

Quote:

Poor boy. You have bitten off more than you can chew...and now your jaw is hurting.

well anyone is a boy compared to you.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

You are certain of that???? Wink

You have got to try to stay away from that. You look like a fool when you make it so easy for me.

Wanna actually do those links in invisible ink??? I can show you how.

ok i'll wait a few months for you to get over the word 'certain'. then maybe we can continue about non duality.

Quote:

I would not pass over a word you write, CM. You are the most entertaining thing on A2K these days.

of course not, but its still funny to imagine you sitting there reading through 40 examples of your own idiocy. "give me ONE example, CM, seriously, just quote me ONCE where i told you you were wrong"...BOOM 40 examples. crushed as usual.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

I'm honest enough to acknowledge that non-duality may not be so. You, and the other non-dualists here, seem to think that because you guess non-duality prevails...then non-duality prevails.

it is not a guess, it is the result of intuitive understanding of your own experience of consciousness, and the lack of 'absolute' reality to it.

Quote:

Me...I do not know the true nature of the REALITY of existence.

yes, you don't know, but you assume a 'reality of existence'.

Quote:

I am delighted you guys think you do.

In fact, I get a kick out of it.

non dualists don't pay any attention to thoughts, unlike dualists.

0 Replies

@Ding an Sich,

Quote:

Well, Frank does know one thing (correct me if I'm wrong, Frank): whatever is... is. It's a good start. A lot of people don't know that. And, yes, I'm serious.

i will correct you. 'whatever is...is' is a simple, obvious statement, and there isn't a human on earth who 'doesn't know that', except infants who can't communicate yet.

if you examine the statement much more closely, then as with any statement on earth, it yields to the concept of non duality. that is, the word "is" can be seen to be simply a concept of existence. therefore, if nothing exists, then whatever is...is nothing. is nothing something? these contradictions are the reason that if you look deeply at "what is is", it is a meaningless statement on certainly not absolutely true. "what is isn't" is just as 'true' as "what is is", if you consider the fact that "is" or "isn't" are always subjective states in consciousness, nothing absolutely "is" or "isn't".

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

I am reasonably confident that whatever IS...IS. I cannot think of anyway that whatever IS...isn't.

it is very easy, things can be both "is" and "is not", or existing and not existing, only if the idea of existence is not absolute. that is, something can be existing from one perspective, and non-existent from another perspective. you have a presumption that there is one ultimate reality, in which things ultimately exist, but this is just a fantasy.

Quote:

I think I may have experienced non-duality once also. It was during a session with one of the go-go dancers from a club where I worked. She was doing this thing with...ahhh...well, maybe it is not best to go into details. But in a general sense, she was working two things at the same time and making it feel as though it was just one thing.

But that is as close to actually experiencing non-duality as I think I've ever gotten.

Jeez...you gotta wonder what these guys are experiencing if non-duality is not the REALITY. Can't imagine it is something more satisfying than that session I was talking about.

nobody has ever experienced non duality, it does not lie in the realm of experience. people have had experiences which lead them to understand the concept of non duality better. furthermore, the final 'understanding' of non duality can never happen within consciousness, but as an understanding of what is beyond consciousness. the 'understanding' is by an 'entity' whose existence is unsure, which is why all ideas of absolute existence dissolve.

the idea of 'satisfaction' is also dualistic, and therefore non duality cannot be satisfying. however, in the same way that 'certainty' is surpassed into anti-certainty, which is paradoxically 'more certain' than regular certainty, satisfaction becomes anti-satisfaction. ie. the idea of temporary satisfaction/happiness is seen as useless. a deeper 'satisfaction' comes out of the understanding that one will never seek temporary satisfaction again, the concept does not apply and is not desired anymore.

0 Replies

@Ding an Sich,

Quote:

So, carnaticmastery is a non-dualist? I thought he was against it based upon the OP. Guess not.

His idea of non-dualism is idiosyncratic, imo.

you are right. my OP was designed to question non duality itself, as a concept which leads to 'nothingness' and therefore should never be misconstrued as a positive concept.

however, because of people like frank and fil, i have had to spend much more time actually arguing the concept of non duality, because they are unable to understand it as a concept, let alone experience the effects of it.

every person's 'idea' of non duality should be idiosyncratic, because that is the precise meaning of non duality. each unique 'individual' has to eventually understand their own non-existence, which can only happen if they fully accept themselves as they are, which will always be unique when compared to another.

if you approach non dualism from trying to be like another person, even the pioneers of the field, you are dualistically approaching non dualism.

1 Reply

@carnaticmystery,

carnaticmystery wrote:

Quote:
Well, Frank does know one thing (correct me if I'm wrong, Frank): whatever is... is. It's a good start. A lot of people don't know that. And, yes, I'm serious.

i will correct you. 'whatever is...is' is a simple, obvious statement, and there isn't a human on earth who 'doesn't know that', except infants who can't communicate yet.

What do you mean by 'doesn't know that'. I'm very suspicious when people through around quotes or double quotes without an explanation to back it up. Fresco is a perfect posterboy of this abuse.

But anyway,

carnaticmystery wrote:

if you examine the statement much more closely, then as with any statement on earth, it yields to the concept of non duality. that is, the word "is" can be seen to be simply a concept of existence.

Alright.

carnaticmystery wrote:

therefore, if nothing exists, then whatever is...is nothing. is nothing something? these contradictions are the reason that if you look deeply at "what is is", it is a meaningless statement on certainly not absolutely true. "what is isn't" is just as 'true' as "what is is", if you consider the fact that "is" or "isn't" are always subjective states in consciousness, nothing absolutely "is" or "isn't".

Wait... I'm gonna have to call a non-sequitur here. You're assuming that nothing exists (in the ontological sense). But we need to be careful here. The question should be raised: what exactly is nothingness? What is its referent? The concept of nothing, as far as I can gather, refers to an absence of something. So, here you're trying to reify a concept with what actually exists.

Also, your assertion that "then whatever is... is nothing" is false. Unless you mean to say, "whatever (as a placeholder) is... is", in which case you're right. But that's not what you're trying to do here. Instead, you're trying to create a paradox. And the paradox can be resolved if we understand the scope and the axiom used here. Nothing is.. nothing. And there's the claim that you should be claiming, but you're not.

In any event, it doesn't lead to the problems that you think it leads to. So, nice try. Smile

Using symbolic logic to demonstrate scope:

What you should be doing:
Ax(x=n), where x is the set that contains n, which is trivial.

What you're trying to do:
Ax(x=n), where x is the set that contains all things, which is nonsense.

Queue Fresco with his "rebuttal" (and, to unpack the double quotes, this means that it's not really a rebuttal, just some constructivist nonsense) of logic and set theory.

1 Reply

@carnaticmystery,

carnaticmystery wrote:

Quote:
So, carnaticmastery is a non-dualist? I thought he was against it based upon the OP. Guess not.

His idea of non-dualism is idiosyncratic, imo.

you are right. my OP was designed to question non duality itself, as a concept which leads to 'nothingness' and therefore should never be misconstrued as a positive concept.

however, because of people like frank and fil, i have had to spend much more time actually arguing the concept of non duality, because they are unable to understand it as a concept, let alone experience the effects of it.

every person's 'idea' of non duality should be idiosyncratic, because that is the precise meaning of non duality. each unique 'individual' has to eventually understand their own non-existence, which can only happen if they fully accept themselves as they are, which will always be unique when compared to another.

if you approach non dualism from trying to be like another person, even the pioneers of the field, you are dualistically approaching non dualism.

Since when does the meaning of non-duality entail one's own non-existence? I mustn't been paying attention in philosophy class or something. How did you arrive at this conclusion? What are your premises? Maybe when we get some of your premises checked out, can we begin to unravel the marvels of non-duality and non-existence in tandem.

1 Reply

@Ding an Sich,

Quote:

What do you mean by 'doesn't know that'.

i mean nobody doesn't know that what is is. simple. it is an obvious statement. but to define the word "is" without any presumptions is what i am talking about.

Quote:

I'm very suspicious when people through around quotes or double quotes without an explanation to back it up. Fresco is a perfect posterboy of this abuse.

ok, if you don't like them i won't use them. but, in my case, quotes are used to indicate the phrasing someone else used, as opposed to myself.

Quote:

Wait... I'm gonna have to call a non-sequitur here. You're assuming that nothing exists (in the ontological sense).

no i am not assuming nothing exists. i am simply conceptualising the opposite of "is". nothingness is a way to describe it.

Quote:

what exactly is nothingness? What is its referent? The concept of nothing, as far as I can gather, refers to an absence of something. So, here you're trying to reify a concept with what actually exists.

i am not trying to reify the concept of nothing. i am simply bringing it up as a concept, whether it is real or illusory, it is conceivable.

Quote:

Also, your assertion that "then whatever is... is nothing" is false.

i didn't assert that. i said "WHAT IF" nothingness is the only thing that existed? then what is...is not also. i did not assert that nothing exists, only speculated on the possibility.

Quote:

Unless you mean to say, "whatever (as a placeholder) is... is", in which case you're right.

dunno what you mean there. i simply mean that "is" and "is not" are concepts, not absolute truths.

Quote:

But that's not what you're trying to do here.

i am trying to question non duality and everything else in existence.

Quote:

Instead, you're trying to create a paradox.

not trying to create one. i see paradoxes everywhere, i am trying to resolve them. non duality helps.

Quote:

And the paradox can be resolved if we understand the scope and the axiom used here.

no paradox can actually be resolved, or it isn't a true paradox.

Quote:

Nothing is.. nothing. And there's the claim that you should be claiming, but you're not.

if you want me to claim that, i can. i disagree that i 'should' be claiming that. i am claiming that all ideas of nothingness/reality/existence/is/is not are conceptual claims coming from a consciousness which is primarily always unsure of its own existence, and only secondarily is able to conceptualise.

Quote:

In any event, it doesn't lead to the problems that you think it leads to. So, nice try.

ok? did i say there was any problem? all i am saying is nothing is absolutely true, including "what is is". its not a problem.

Quote:

What you should be doing:
Ax(x=n), where x is the set that contains n, which is trivial.

What you're trying to do:
Ax(x=n), where x is the set that contains all things, which is nonsense.

i am not trying to do anything, i am not trying to prove that "what is isn't". i am just explaining the questionable nature of "what is is".

1 Reply

@Ding an Sich,

Quote:

Since when does the meaning of non-duality entail one's own non-existence?

since the concept of non duality began at the beginning of vedic times in india, probably pre-dating most other human literature on earth.

non-existence in an absolute sense. the personal consciousness appears to exist to an infinite awareness, which itself has no absolute 'reality'.

Quote:

I mustn't been paying attention in philosophy class or something. How did you arrive at this conclusion? What are your premises? Maybe when we get some of your premises checked out, can we begin to unravel the marvels of non-duality and non-existence in tandem.

really one statement is enough about non duality. you either get it or you don't. most of what i understood about it came from the book "i am that" by nisargadatta maharaj, as well as a bunch of other non dualists.

but the basic premise i am using to arrive at non-existence is:

non duality means that duality doesn't exist. when the idea of duality is exposed completely, it encapsulates the entirety of existence that can be conceived. therefore, non-existence, a paradoxical concept, reveals itself intuitively to consciousness. that is, the consciousness becomes aware that what it is, by itself, is the entirety of existence. but it is also simultaneously aware that its own existence is uncertain, there is no identity or characteristic by which to define it, there is nothing that is not it, and therefore its own existence becomes questionable because it is self-defined.

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Perhaps, Frank. Though that has nothing to do with what I am talking about here. But I don't expect you to understand that, seeing as how you are only interested in disrupting constructive threads.

I am not interested in disrupting constructive threads, Cyracuz. I have found, however, that people like you just do not like comments that cast any question on your belief system at all...even from people who tend to agree with your general theme.

And what I said had plenty to do with what you were talking about...although I don't expect you to acknowledge that you understand because you are being unnecessarily stone-headed right now.

1 Reply

morality, drugs, existence

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know