morality, drugs, existence

You have it backwards. Non-dualism doesn't lead to drug usage. Rather, drug usage leads to non-dualism.

Why Joe is that
I'd suppose Car refers to a "non-duality" with no life structure, as for instance devoid of religion, which supposedly keeps so many of us in line

What do you think is indicated when Buddhists and Taoists say, Neither one nor two?

I'm not sure they do

https://www.google.ca/#q=Buddhists+and+Taoists+say%2C+Neither+one+nor+two

However, maybe it's a way to deny dualism

A dynamic "not" wont change the reference to what is being noted...a true not can't be referenced to. Its not even addressable.

When we say something is just a concept n thus not real we are not being precise...

For instance "God" may be nothing more then an animistic concept referring to unity itself where awareness, consciousness, is given a central role in the idea of a set. While this conjunction in all fairness may be questioned with ease, it still is true that both the idea of unity or conciousness separately can't be refuted. Somehow in a twisted way there are "gods" as gods are conceivable in thought processes n group thought processes help shape the world... on another line of reasoning it certainly is true that I am a sort of god when I look to an ant...similarly I have no guarantee the pattern cannot be repeated upwards in the chain of power.

Back to JL post, I rather, "not just one or not just two"...as multiplicity does not really negate unity, and unity is not meaningful without multiplicity.

Well put Fil. Parallel to what I've maintained for the longest time, that whether or not there's a God depends on what's meant by "God"

Us apodictical existential pantheists maintaining that She, It, is the Universe; and all the action therein, Her thinking. She being an entirely natural phenom

No. Sure, your power compared to that of an ant is awesome.
But you can't claim ants as your creation. You can kill ants, but you can't grant them life.

But aside from that, what you you suppose would happen if some creature appeared one day, from outer space, claiming he was responsible for life on planet earth?
Do you suppose people here would call that creature god?
My guess is that they would not, and that tells the truth about god, as far as I'm concerned. The whole thing only works for as long as the main character remains absent.

While I certainly couldn't claim ants are my "creation", I don't even like the word which is time dependent, I could in principle create an A.I. form with the intelligence of an ant...ants as ants is irrelevant for the overall structure of the argument.
The argument for "God" or "gods" can be made in many ways with several degrees of rationality...while my idea of a final set reports to an abstract entity which relates more with mathematics then it could ever relate with animism, my idea of just big unified sets has no opposition to consciousness...simply put I don't think a true God exists as consciousness at the base, but I have no quarrel with quasi omnipotent beings when degrees of consciousness are compared in a huge almost infinite scale of variety. "Quasi omnipotent" as from C to D its a relative comparative measurement irrelevant to source timeless metaphysics...
(...when not speaking at the base, at the source, comparatively anything can be said...)

If at this point some may wonder why lesser gods and why not a capital one, as we think of God in a classical animistic and truly all powerful sense, my justification is that a final set does not reason directions but rather refers to the existence of all directions...reasoning, ordering, makes preferences and choices, the very idea is contrary to the idea of a final set...

I think that if you were to actually create a system or set that perfectly describes reality and accounts for everything...
...I don't think it would be any easier to find god in that system than in the reality it sought to describe.

Lets see...its well known that bigger systems explain smaller systems, it also can be deduced that no system explains itself...thus a system of systems cannot explain itself without requiring yet another bigger system...in a final system its reason (order) its not measurable by consciousness, rather consciousness is within the form of its reason, its being.

What about the brain? It is a biological system trying to explain itself.



In many ways "system" is the opposite of "oneness". If god is oneness, it's not a system, and you can't make a system to account for it.
This is because as soon as you think of it as something consisting of smaller parts, you are not seeing the oneness anymore.

Unified does not equate to oneness, the "oneness" in a system refers to the integration of the system parts and not their obliteration to one thing. Unification always refers to at least 2 parts that relate in a ratio, an order...
The complexity of a system always requires a bigger system to explain said complexity, parts and trajectories, this is well known for mathematicians and physicists.

Minds do not explain themselves any more then water explains water...

Minds try to. Water just is.

This is an ancient problem.
If you agree that human beings have minds, and if you agree that human beings are part of nature, it follows that there is a mindfulness to nature (via humans) and this part of the system eagerly seeks to describe and understand everything. Centuries of writings and research is evidence of that.

You two fellas should write a book
Seriously

I've tried to explain 2 general ideas without much success that should be easy to grasp.

1 - A final set of all sets, the biggest set, cannot be known due to set size.
2 - Circular arguments are not arguments at all...

I can't justify minds with minds any more then I can't justify water with water independently of what minds do n water doesn't do because of the circularity of the argument.

I thought it was clear enough that minds make choices. Doing choices requires options. Options require bigger sets to chose from. A Final Set cannot be a mind because there is nothing to chose recombine or opt for out of a final set own nature. A final set cannot explain justify or know itself absolutely, it just is, and it is not a mind but rather the reason why there are sub sets which are minds. A final set is the reason of all things motion and options included but itself, being all, it cannot move outwards, it cannot outgrow its own nature. That's what final means. Perfect knowledge would require a perfect replication of said final set complexity, all the information needed be accounted for...if it was possible then the final set would no longer be a final set n thus the reason of everything. In resume a final set cannot be justified (replicated), its complexity its final.

Nature does minds, minds don't do nature, minds try to understand, partially, the source, the reason of their existence, which is other then itself, as itself moves within the complexity of bigger sets. Knowledge of nature is doomed to be always compressed data of something bigger, thus symbolic representative n not the thing itself.

Thank you Fil but it's too deep for your Average Clod (me)

No it is not...you just have to think about what is it that minds do all the time...which is precisely to explain complexity, to order, to justify, to comprehend. You cannot comprehend more complexity within you then the complexity you, your own system has...

...a final system itself does not move, rather, motion is something that the system breeds within itself by having sub systems interacting. A final system as a whole cannot interact with its own total nature, its fixed. Sub systems that are mind like when explaining the world, ordering its logic, make options within the final system and not outwards or beyond it, they comprise explanatory power limited to their own capacity n thus cannot justify themselves as their constituents, parts, are necessarily bigger, then the replication justification that could be provided about itself. In simple terms is like asking a glass of water to fit within itself a replica of itself with same size...it can't be done...at best the replica although portraying, showing resemblance with the same patterns n forms would always be smaller n thus less complex then the original.

Final knowledge would require replication of a final set, a contradiction. Being cannot be replicated or explained.

...if at this point anyone thought about fractals as a possible counter let me clarify even further :

The purpose of knowledge

The purpose of knowledge is to replicate the pattern form n not the overall pattern complexity. That is, a pattern shape can be replicated with a smaller size. Knowledge although never achieving certainty, perfect replication, can nonetheless portray similarity of shape, UNDERSTANDING.

...The distinction in quality needed be done between Science and Philosophy is that Philosophy has a more sober aim...Philosophy is concerned with pattern shape and not with pattern overall size complexity... : ))

To be perfectly blunt, Science is a slave, an instrument for Philosophy, and not a goal in itself.