morality, drugs, existence

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

Quote:
They work in tandem.

Context dropping. I stated that the left and right hands, or the left and right hemispheres, work together in tandem. I did not say that dualism and non-dualism work in tandem. So we're in disagreement.

Cyracuz wrote:

This is my point. I would not call non-dualism or dualism philosophical positions. I would call them philosophical concepts.

Ok, so what are their referents? In the context of philosophy, dualism refers to a position that inflates the ontological cleft between two diametrically opposed sets of entities. For example, Cartesian dualism holds that minds and bodies exist, but are entirely separate from one another.

Non-dualism, on the other hand, holds that there is no such ontological, or epistemological (depending on your bent) distinction. And, judging from the way the word's been tossed around on this thread, it can refer to multiple positions, ontological or epistemological. If it's ontological, then you get monism (there is only one substance, and we are all modes of it). If it's epistemological, then you get correlationism (no being without thought, no thought without being).

You need to unpack the referents of these concepts, my friend.

Surely, these are the referents? Or am I mistaken?

Cyracuz wrote:

Let me try to illustrate the point once more. If you were reporting on a football match, you would perhaps start off by explaining that there were two teams playing this match. In that context, the two teams are dualistic counterparts that form a whole; the game being played.

Then you might talk about each team, and then the whole that is a team will be divided into smaller components. You might distinguish between offensive and defensive players, who then are dualistic counterparts that form a whole.

And if we were having a conversation about this, and we both were avid football fans, we could jump between these perspectives from one sentence to another. Our mutual understanding as followers of the sport would be what enabled this more or less arbitrary jumping back and forth between 'conceptual levels' (match would be one conceptual level, team a level beneath, and players a level beneath that again.
If one of us had little or no knowledge of football, that jumping back and forth would be a lot more challenging, and we would not communicate as successfully.

I don't disagree with what you say, as far as the usual modus operandi of football matches is concerned, but you're missing the point. The non-dualist, if he is a monist (ontological non-dualist), would say that ultimately the entire football match, everyone and everything in it, is a mode or affectation of one substance. The dualist, on the other hand, would state that, metaphysically speaking, the football players are minds that are somehow affecting bodies.

Cyracuz wrote:

I hope this illustrates the point I am trying to make, that debating the existence of non-duality or duality is about as futile as debating the existence of up or down.

I'm not debating the existence of these philosophical positions, but their truth and validity. Of course they exist, in the minds of those who hold them to be true.

Cyracuz wrote:

Does a meter (the metric length value) exist? I think that is a rather wrongheaded question to ask.

I think so too. Glad we agree. Smile

1 Reply

@carnaticmystery,

carnaticmystery wrote:

Quote:
Good luck getting through, Ding.

every single thing you or ding has said has 'gotten through' to me fully. thats why i respond directly to every comment. what do you think, that i am 'asserting' things hasn't gotten through? that i use words idiosyncratically hasn't gotten through? that i am wrong about everything apparently? hahaha, everything gets through to me and you know it.

Quote:
He has the makings of a thinking person...truly.

everyone is a thinking person. you saying this just shows that you judge between 'thinking people' and 'non thinking people', probably considering yourself as one of the great 'thinking people'. and you 'truly' think i can be one too? wake up from your fantasy and realise you don't exist, fool.

Quote:
But it does look as though he wants to waste it.

exactly. waste everything. your idea that something has value and shouldn't be wasted is restricting your life a million-fold. at least let your last years have some excitement, and WASTE THEM.

every

Try to stay under control, CM...you look silly when you start raving like you did here.

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Quote:

I would not call non-dualism or dualism philosophical positions. I would call them philosophical concepts.

non dualism is the original philosophy of india. dualism came into it later, and was simply the introduction of the concept of 'god', or an ultimate reality existing behind this apparent reality. so the duality was the 'apparent existence' vs 'conceptual ultimate reality/god', as two separate things. whether you define them separately or not, they are obviously related. that is, it is only the apparently existing consciousness which can conceptualise about god or ultimate reality.

so non duality is just the obvious truth of the unitary/nondual nature of all existence.

Quote:

I hope this illustrates the point I am trying to make, that debating the existence of non-duality or duality is about as futile as debating the existence of up or down.

i am debating the existence of anything, including non duality. but non duality is a different type of concept than up/down. up and down are simple concepts of direction, but non duality is a complex concept referring to all possible concepts. therefore, the debate of non duality vs duality vs anything is probably more interesting/relevant to humanity than the debate of up vs down.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

You ask me to open my mind, and yet you shoot down every attempt anyone makes at communicating their ideas... oh the irony.
You are among the most closed minded people I have ever met, Frank.
Meanwhile, my mind is open. At the moment I am engaged in exploring the philosophical ideas of duality and non-duality.

The assertion that "whatever is IS", is completely irrelevant.
Is non-duality true? Answer how you like. The question is moot to the point I am making.
I am not arguing the ontological status of non-duality or duality. That would be as foolish as arguing the ontological status of "one meter" or "up".

Non-duality is the philosophical, spiritual, and scientific understanding of non-separation and fundamental intrinsic oneness. In other words, understanding based on certain criteria.
Duality, conversely, is the philosophical, spiritual, and scientific understanding of separation and diversity. Or, in other words, understanding based on other criteria.

Meanwhile, we have this brain that seems to consist of two parts. One part is all about non-separation and oneness, while the other is detail oriented. Both function together, and we know that a person who suffers a stroke in the left hemisphere of the brain might experience a temporary shutdown, and then only experience oneness, having lost the ability to understand the world in terms of objects, self and all other notions of separation.

Here is a video of a brain scientist telling the story of how she experienced a massive stroke in the left half of her brain.

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Actually, there may be an objective "normality." It does not have to be subjective. (It may always be, but there is no way to know that for sure...although that does not stop you from asserting it as a fact upon which you base further argument.)

But you have to open your mind to acknowledge that.

ok, there may be an objective normality to you. but to me, you are the one not understanding the concept of normality. it implies an opinion, which is subjective. if you are talking about mathematical normality, then yes it is objective. i am not.

Quote:

It could be considered a tautology…and should, because that is what it is.

no, i consider it an unresolvable paradox.

Quote:

are there any statements that are absolutely true?

Quote:

Well, if there are not...then the statement "There are no true statements" must be false...which means...ahhh...no need to go over it again.

no. the statement 'there are no true statements' is a statement. the ideas of a true or false are concepts. if there is an ultimate/absolute truth in those concepts, then yes, all my arguments become paradoxical and wrong. but there is no way of confirming any absolute truth. simply claiming that a verbal paradox exists if 'there is no truth' doesn't acknowledge the real possibility of 'no truth'.

Quote:

You are arguing the bizarre...and pretending it is simply the product of the superior mind you possess. Your posts are, for the most part, you reaching around with your arm to pat yourself on the back.

yes, happy to argue the bizarre, never said i have any superior mind, that must be your opinion, so thanks.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Quote:

Non-duality is the philosophical, spiritual, and scientific understanding of non-separation and fundamental intrinsic oneness. In other words, understanding based on certain criteria.
Duality, conversely, is the philosophical, spiritual, and scientific understanding of separation and diversity. Or, in other words, understanding based on other criteria.

non duality can never be understood, there is no criteria to understand it. all understandings are dual, there is the understander and the understanding. if the understanding is about non duality, it is still a dual understanding.

so i would disagree, and say that duality is 'understanding anything by any criteria'. non duality is 'not understanding anything' as a result of an experiential oneness between the understander and the understanding, rendering both of them essentially non-existent as separate entities.

1 Reply

@Ding an Sich,

Quote:

You need to unpack the referents of these concepts, my friend.

I may not have been consistent with my use of the words duality and dualism.
Strictly speaking, duality is a concept we assign to that which is two-fold, or dichotomies. I have used it more generally as referring to the mental act of dividing something into it's parts.

Quote:

I think so too. Glad we agree.

I made an edit there, but I see you had started your reply before I did. Sorry about that, though it doesn't affect our agreement on the quote.

Is one meter true? That was what I added to it. The question seems equally wrongheaded to me, because it makes no sense.

0 Replies

@carnaticmystery,

Quote:

so i would disagree, and say that duality is 'understanding anything by any criteria'. non duality is 'not understanding anything' as a result of an experiential oneness between the understander and the understanding, rendering both of them essentially non-existent as separate entities.

I would say you are on to something here, from a zen point of view.
From a philosophical point of view I would interject that it is not impossible for non-duality to be understood through a process of duality.

0 Replies

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

You ask me to open my mind, and yet you shoot down every attempt anyone makes at communicating their ideas... oh the irony.
You are among the most closed minded people I have ever met, Frank.
Meanwhile, my mind is open. At the moment I am engaged in exploring the philosophical ideas of duality and non-duality.

The assertion that "whatever is IS", is completely irrelevant.
Is non-duality true? Answer how you like. The question is moot to the point I am making.
I am not arguing the ontological status of non-duality or duality. That would be as foolish as arguing the ontological status of "one meter" or "up".

Non-duality is the philosophical, spiritual, and scientific understanding of non-separation and fundamental intrinsic oneness. In other words, understanding based on certain criteria.
Duality, conversely, is the philosophical, spiritual, and scientific understanding of separation and diversity. Or, in other words, understanding based on other criteria.

Meanwhile, we have this brain that seems to consist of two parts. One part is all about non-separation and oneness, while the other is detail oriented. Both function together, and we know that a person who suffers a stroke in the left hemisphere of the brain might experience a temporary shutdown, and then only experience oneness, having lost the ability to understand the world in terms of objects, self and all other notions of separation.

Here is a video of a brain scientist telling the story of how she experienced a massive stroke in the left half of her brain.

You lash out for no good reason, Cyracuz...and you do it way too often.

You started the insulting and demeaning in this thread...and even after a reasonable hiatus...you started it again.

I have no problem with discussing the notions of duality and non-duality...with you or with anyone. Most of my (on issue) comments here have been directed at assertions that CM has been making...gratuitous, self-serving assertions about the true nature of REALITY.

Oh, he always seem to follow it up with an "I do not know"...but the fact that he makes the unwarranted assertions is indicative of something else.

To your credit (except when discussing Buddhism)...you do not come with as many assertions as does CM...nor do you seem to start with the assumption that non-duality HAS TO BE the REALITY.

I do not know the true nature of the REALITY of existence...and I cannot rule out that duality is the REALITY. I cannot rule out that there is a GOD.

Some of the people here seem to be able to do that...although they immediately see the folly of their position and try to have it both ways...first by asserting things as truths and then saying, "But I may be wrong."

I specifically acknowledge that I do not know...which I see as the more ethical rendering of the issue.

I'm not sure why we have such a problem, Cyracuz...or why you consider me a troll or someone close minded (I am anything but)...although there are times I suspect it comes because you simply do not want to hear any speculation leading toward... something or other.

By the way, I had a minor stroke myself last month which has left me essentially blind in my right eye. Life goes on...and I continue to enjoy it despite the heavy toll it has taken on my putting.

2 Replies

@carnaticmystery,

carnaticmystery wrote:

Quote:
Actually, there may be an objective "normality." It does not have to be subjective. (It may always be, but there is no way to know that for sure...although that does not stop you from asserting it as a fact upon which you base further argument.)

But you have to open your mind to acknowledge that.

ok, there may be an objective normality to you. but to me, you are the one not understanding the concept of normality. it implies an opinion, which is subjective. if you are talking about mathematical normality, then yes it is objective. i am not.

Okay…originally you indicated that “normality only exists subjectively.” I said that is not necessarily so. Here you are saying “it is not necessarily so”…

...but you are still trying to make me seem wrong.

Are you doing this just for the entertainment value?

Quote:

Quote:
It could be considered a tautology…and should, because that is what it is.

no, i consider it an unresolvable paradox.

You could consider it a pig piloting a B1 bomber if you want…but that wouldn’t make it one. It IS a tautology no matter what you consider it.

(You could do yourself a huge favor by simply acknowledging that it is a tautology and that I have been right all along for saying that it is. Wink

)

Quote:

Quote:
are there any statements that are absolutely true?

Quote:
Well, if there are not...then the statement "There are no true statements" must be false...which means...ahhh...no need to go over it again.

no. the statement 'there are no true statements' is a statement. the ideas of a true or false are concepts. if there is an ultimate/absolute truth in those concepts, then yes, all my arguments become paradoxical and wrong. but there is no way of confirming any absolute truth. simply claiming that a verbal paradox exists if 'there is no truth' doesn't acknowledge the real possibility of 'no truth'.

Jeez, CM. You really are reaching. What I said is correct…and I suspect you see that it is. My disagreement with you is not about whether you can see I am correct or not…but with whether you can be man enough to acknowledge I am…when I am.

Quote:

Quote:
You are arguing the bizarre...and pretending it is simply the product of the superior mind you possess. Your posts are, for the most part, you reaching around with your arm to pat yourself on the back.

yes, happy to argue the bizarre, never said i have any superior mind, that must be your opinion, so thanks.

Hey, no problem. But you are arguing the bizarre…and that actually is what you should be thanking me for. That you can actually use to revise your thinking. But of course, you would prefer to think you have a superior mind…so go for it. You may in fact be a lot smarter than I…but if you are, you should be ashamed of yourself for how you are dishonoring that superior intellect!

2 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

I am sorry to hear about your stroke, Frank. Losing the use of an eye can't be easy.

Quote:

I do not know the true nature of the REALITY of existence...and I cannot rule out that duality is the REALITY.

Nice little rhyme that.
But when it comes to dualism vs holism or non-dualism, I prefer limiting myself to the human experience we all seem to share rather similar versions of, because it is in this context the concepts make sense. I don't think that anything is dualistic or holistic in itself. I think those are labels we put on our perceptions. Like meters.
We can't say that "a meter exists".... A meter of what?
Let's say rope. What if arguing dualism/holism is similar to arguing whether the rope is measured in inches or centimeters? It does not matter to the rope, only to those who need to have an understanding of how long it is.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

Most of my (on issue) comments here have been directed at assertions that CM has been making...gratuitous, self-serving assertions about the true nature of REALITY.

there is no reality. that is not an assertion about reality, its about no reality.

Quote:

Oh, he always seem to follow it up with an "I do not know"...but the fact that he makes the unwarranted assertions is indicative of something else.

thats because i don't know, and neither do you. knowing is an illusory concept.

Quote:

To your credit (except when discussing Buddhism)...you do not come with as many assertions as does CM...nor do you seem to start with the assumption that non-duality HAS TO BE the REALITY.

never asserting anything only works when you believe in an ultimate reality. therefore, asserting anything must be wrong, because what if the ultimate reality is different? i assert anything i want because i experience that there is no reality, i am not guessing or assuming.

Quote:

I do not know the true nature of the REALITY of existence...and I cannot rule out that duality is the REALITY. I cannot rule out that there is a GOD.

you can't rule out those things because you are leaving them as concepts, and leaving intact the assumption that there is an absolute reality to concepts. your choice to wrongly assume.

Quote:

Some of the people here seem to be able to do that...although they immediately see the folly of their position and try to have it both ways...first by asserting things as truths and then saying, "But I may be wrong."

i am not saying non duality is the REALITY. i am saying it is one of millions of human theories trying to explain reality. it is the only theory which actually explains it while unifying all other concepts, without excluding any. the only problem is, it does not guarantee an absolute reality that you so dearly want to believe in.

Quote:

I specifically acknowledge that I do not know...which I see as the more ethical rendering of the issue.

ahhhh so when you say 'i don't know', its ethical. lets just take a look at your previous quote again:

Quote:

Oh, he always seem to follow it up with an "I do not know"...but the fact that he makes the unwarranted assertions is indicative of something else.

so apparently making assertions after saying 'you don't know' something is a terrible offence. you should call the police and turn yourself in. hypocrite.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

ok, there may be an objective normality to you. but to me, you are the one not understanding the concept of normality. it implies an opinion, which is subjective. if you are talking about mathematical normality, then yes it is objective. i am not.

Quote:

Okay…originally you indicated that “normality only exists subjectively.” I said that is not necessarily so. Here you are saying “it is not necessarily so”…

...but you are still trying to make me seem wrong.

Are you doing this just for the entertainment value?

no, learn english as i said earlier. i said TO YOU, IN YOUR OPINION, there is an objective normality. that itself is an idiosyncratic, abnormal view of the word normal, IN MY OPINION. therefore the FOLLOWING SENTENCES explain how normality is a subjective opinion, except for MATHEMATICAL NORMALITY which you weren't talking about.

therefore, i 100% defended my own position.

the only entertainment i get from you is that you project all your own idiotic flaws onto me. this post i am replying to is a perfect example of your idiocy. you make a point to specifically burn me for saying 'i don't know' as well as 'asserting things', and that is EXACTLY what you do in this post.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

You could consider it a pig piloting a B1 bomber if you want…but that wouldn’t make it one. It IS a tautology no matter what you consider it.

(You could do yourself a huge favor by simply acknowledging that it is a tautology and that I have been right all along for saying that it is. Wink )

you are like an immature infant, wanting to be acknowledged as correct, and nothing more. and wanting me to submit to being incorrect to you. the problem is, i identified this idiotic trait in you much earlier, and submitted openly that i am wrong about everything, you are right about everything. still its not enough for you. so no, now i will stick to my own definitions.

"what is is" is paradoxical when considered in conjunction with non duality. calling it a 'tautology' is only showing your limited understanding of words, your need for that statement to only be a 'tautology' and nothing else, probably just to prove your understanding of the simple word. i could argue no, it is a '3 word combination'. is that wrong too? or is it only a tautology? haha your stupidity is so amusing.

Quote:

no. the statement 'there are no true statements' is a statement. the ideas of a true or false are concepts. if there is an ultimate/absolute truth in those concepts, then yes, all my arguments become paradoxical and wrong. but there is no way of confirming any absolute truth. simply claiming that a verbal paradox exists if 'there is no truth' doesn't acknowledge the real possibility of 'no truth'.

Quote:

Jeez, CM. You really are reaching. What I said is correct…and I suspect you see that it is. My disagreement with you is not about whether you can see I am correct or not…but with whether you can be man enough to acknowledge I am…when I am.

buddy, the day you are right about something, i will gladly acknowledge it. unfortunately, that day is probably not going to happen in this lifetime for you, because you are unwilling to completely devote your life to resolving the 'problem of reality'. you say you stick to 'i don't know', but you are not doing that completely. 'i don't know' is a state which by itself leads to 'figuring out', unless you adamantly keep it as 'i don't know', by creating your own philosophy where 'i don't know' is the ultimate.

Quote:

Hey, no problem. But you are arguing the bizarre…and that actually is what you should be thanking me for. That you can actually use to revise your thinking. But of course, you would prefer to think you have a superior mind…so go for it. You may in fact be a lot smarter than I…but if you are, you should be ashamed of yourself for how you are dishonoring that superior intellect!

i am arguing concepts that seem bizarre to you because you have a limited understanding of non duality, which is still stemming from the egoic belief of your own personal consciousness as an absolute reality.

you are so limited by having to see things in terms of superiority/inferiority, smart/dumb, because you just can't accept non duality. shame is dualistic. honour is dualistic. enjoy them.

1 Reply

@Cyracuz,

Cyracuz wrote:

I am sorry to hear about your stroke, Frank. Losing the use of an eye can't be easy.

Quote:
I do not know the true nature of the REALITY of existence...and I cannot rule out that duality is the REALITY.

Nice little rhyme that.
But when it comes to dualism vs holism or non-dualism, I prefer limiting myself to the human experience we all seem to share rather similar versions of, because it is in this context the concepts make sense.

That may be the difference between us, Cyracuz. The notion of something possibly existing outside of human experience...(the notion of not excluding anything that cannot be sensed by humans)...makes much, much more sense to me than limiting myself to human experience.

I might add that if I were to subscribe to your take...I would have to limit myself ONLY to what I personally can experience, because supposing there is anyone else out there to share in that experience (as reflected in your "we all seem to share"...would make no sense to me.

We just differ on this. I acknowledge and appreciate your take.

Quote:

I don't think that anything is dualistic or holistic in itself. I think those are labels we put on our perceptions. Like meters.
We can't say that "a meter exists".... A meter of what?
Let's say rope. What if arguing dualism/holism is similar to arguing whether the rope is measured in inches or centimeters? It does not matter to the rope, only to those who need to have an understanding of how long it is.

And what if it isn't?

I am merely saying that we do not know the REALITY...and to simply dismiss the possibility of a REALITY because one already subscribes to a non-dualistic perspective...just does not make sense to me.

I acknowledge it does to other intelligent, reasonable people.

1 Reply

@carnaticmystery,

carnaticmystery wrote:

Quote:
Most of my (on issue) comments here have been directed at assertions that CM has been making...gratuitous, self-serving assertions about the true nature of REALITY.

there is no reality. that is not an assertion about reality, its about no reality.

I suspect you do not know there is no reality...although it is a gratuitous assertion you frequently make.

Quote:

Quote:
Oh, he always seem to follow it up with an "I do not know"...but the fact that he makes the unwarranted assertions is indicative of something else.

thats because i don't know, and neither do you. knowing is an illusory concept.

I suspect you do not know it is an illusory concept...although that is a gratuitous assertion you frequently make.

Quote:

Quote:
To your credit (except when discussing Buddhism)...you do not come with as many assertions as does CM...nor do you seem to start with the assumption that non-duality HAS TO BE the REALITY.

never asserting anything only works when you believe in an ultimate reality. therefore, asserting anything must be wrong, because what if the ultimate reality is different? i assert anything i want because i experience that there is no reality, i am not guessing or assuming.

That simply does not make enough sense to give a response other than that it does not make any sense.

Quote:

Quote:
I do not know the true nature of the REALITY of existence...and I cannot rule out that duality is the REALITY. I cannot rule out that there is a GOD.

you can't rule out those things because you are leaving them as concepts, and leaving intact the assumption that there is an absolute reality to concepts. your choice to wrongly assume.

Neither does that.

Quote:

Quote:
Some of the people here seem to be able to do that...although they immediately see the folly of their position and try to have it both ways...first by asserting things as truths and then saying, "But I may be wrong."

i am not saying non duality is the REALITY. i am saying it is one of millions of human theories trying to explain reality. it is the only theory which actually explains it while unifying all other concepts, without excluding any. the only problem is, it does not guarantee an absolute reality that you so dearly want to believe in.

Quote:

Nor that.

Quote:
I specifically acknowledge that I do not know...which I see as the more ethical rendering of the issue.

ahhhh so when you say 'i don't know', its ethical. lets just take a look at your previous quote again:

Quote:
Oh, he always seem to follow it up with an "I do not know"...but the fact that he makes the unwarranted assertions is indicative of something else.

so apparently making assertions after saying 'you don't know' something is a terrible offence. you should call the police and turn yourself in. hypocrite.

Nor any of that.

1 Reply

@carnaticmystery,

carnaticmystery wrote:

Quote:
ok, there may be an objective normality to you. but to me, you are the one not understanding the concept of normality. it implies an opinion, which is subjective. if you are talking about mathematical normality, then yes it is objective. i am not.

Quote:
Okay…originally you indicated that “normality only exists subjectively.” I said that is not necessarily so. Here you are saying “it is not necessarily so”…

...but you are still trying to make me seem wrong.

Are you doing this just for the entertainment value?

no, learn english as i said earlier. i said TO YOU, IN YOUR OPINION, there is an objective normality. that itself is an idiosyncratic, abnormal view of the word normal, IN MY OPINION. therefore the FOLLOWING SENTENCES explain how normality is a subjective opinion, except for MATHEMATICAL NORMALITY which you weren't talking about.

therefore, i 100% defended my own position.

the only entertainment i get from you is that you project all your own idiotic flaws onto me. this post i am replying to is a perfect example of your idiocy. you make a point to specifically burn me for saying 'i don't know' as well as 'asserting things', and that is EXACTLY what you do in this post.

You are out of control, CM. Try to get calm down.

1 Reply

@carnaticmystery,

carnaticmystery wrote:

Quote:
You could consider it a pig piloting a B1 bomber if you want…but that wouldn’t make it one. It IS a tautology no matter what you consider it.

(You could do yourself a huge favor by simply acknowledging that it is a tautology and that I have been right all along for saying that it is. Wink )

you are like an immature infant, wanting to be acknowledged as correct, and nothing more. and wanting me to submit to being incorrect to you. the problem is, i identified this idiotic trait in you much earlier, and submitted openly that i am wrong about everything, you are right about everything. still its not enough for you. so no, now i will stick to my own definitions.

"what is is" is paradoxical when considered in conjunction with non duality. calling it a 'tautology' is only showing your limited understanding of words, your need for that statement to only be a 'tautology' and nothing else, probably just to prove your understanding of the simple word. i could argue no, it is a '3 word combination'. is that wrong too? or is it only a tautology? haha your stupidity is so amusing.

Quote:
no. the statement 'there are no true statements' is a statement. the ideas of a true or false are concepts. if there is an ultimate/absolute truth in those concepts, then yes, all my arguments become paradoxical and wrong. but there is no way of confirming any absolute truth. simply claiming that a verbal paradox exists if 'there is no truth' doesn't acknowledge the real possibility of 'no truth'.

Quote:
Jeez, CM. You really are reaching. What I said is correct…and I suspect you see that it is. My disagreement with you is not about whether you can see I am correct or not…but with whether you can be man enough to acknowledge I am…when I am.

buddy, the day you are right about something, i will gladly acknowledge it. unfortunately, that day is probably not going to happen in this lifetime for you, because you are unwilling to completely devote your life to resolving the 'problem of reality'. you say you stick to 'i don't know', but you are not doing that completely. 'i don't know' is a state which by itself leads to 'figuring out', unless you adamantly keep it as 'i don't know', by creating your own philosophy where 'i don't know' is the ultimate.

Quote:
Hey, no problem. But you are arguing the bizarre…and that actually is what you should be thanking me for. That you can actually use to revise your thinking. But of course, you would prefer to think you have a superior mind…so go for it. You may in fact be a lot smarter than I…but if you are, you should be ashamed of yourself for how you are dishonoring that superior intellect!

i am arguing concepts that seem bizarre to you because you have a limited understanding of non duality, which is still stemming from the egoic belief of your own personal consciousness as an absolute reality.

you are so limited by having to see things in terms of superiority/inferiority, smart/dumb, because you just can't accept non duality. shame is dualistic. honour is dualistic. enjoy them.

Way out of control. Take deep breaths.

1 Reply

@Frank Apisa,

a random user just pm'd me:

Quote:

Your posts are making perfect sense... at least to me... continue to ignore Frank's empty insults.

lol. everything i wrote makes perfect sense, just keep working at your language skills to understand it.

0 Replies

@Frank Apisa,

Quote:

I suspect you do not know there is no reality...although it is a gratuitous assertion you frequently make.

how can i 'know' there is no reality, if there is actually no reality? there is nothing or nobody to know.

Quote:

I suspect you do not know it is an illusory concept...although that is a gratuitous assertion you frequently make.

if knowing is an illusory concept, then it obviously can't be known.

Quote:

never asserting anything only works when you believe in an ultimate reality. therefore, asserting anything must be wrong, because what if the ultimate reality is different? i assert anything i want because i experience that there is no reality, i am not guessing or assuming.

Quote:

That simply does not make enough sense to give a response other than that it does not make any sense.

its possible that was too complex for you. let me simplify. you blame me for 'asserting' things when i should be saying 'i don't know'. the reason is because you believe in an ultimate reality. you believe this ultimate reality is definitely more complex than anything any human can understand. therefore, you assume that anybody who 'asserts' must be wrong, because nobody can understand 'ultimate reality'.

i am simply saying in my experience there is no ultimate reality, therefore the idea that one shouldn't assert things doesn't arise. so i assert whatever i want, and you get angry. and this continues..

1 Reply

morality, drugs, existence

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know