JLNobody wrote:Joe, I realized that it was Twyvel, and I redirected my question to him. It doesn't matter who answers it. But what do YOU mean by "fails on its own terms", self-contradicts?
I have frequently stated that non-dualism leads to paradoxes and contradictions. But I wouldn't say that non-dualism is,
on its own terms, "self-contradictory," since non-dualism, as I understand it, does not accept the law of non-contradiction. Hence, even if it is "self-contradictory," it is so only in a trivial sense (that being the only sense in which non-dualism accepts the basic notion of contradiction).
Instead, non-dualism fails on its own terms because it cannot claim to be "valid" on its own terms. And it cannot claim to be "valid" because it refutes all conceivable bases of valid knowledge.
Knowledge is obtainable through only two known methods: inductive/empirical and deductive/logical. The non-dualists, however, apparently want to add a third: some sort of "insight" or "special understanding." To be fair to non-dualism, then, I will also address this third means of "knowing."
INDUCTIVE/EMPIRICAL: One way of knowing something is through an empirical process grounded in sense perception. If I see something, for example, I can, based upon that empirical evidence, assert that it exists, at least on a provisional basis, and I can either confirm or refute that provisional assertion through other sense perceptions.
Non-dualists, on the other hand, assert that there is no distinction between the subject and the object: thus, all sense perceptions are, in effect,
self-perceptions. Such self-perceptions, however, are not susceptible to either confirmation or refutation: one cannot say, for instance, that one's self-perception is either wrong or right, since the only means of verifying such a self-perception is the
same self-perception, as perceived by the subject/object. In other words, non-dualist induction becomes a tautology: something "is" because it
is.
Now, for the non-dualist, this tautological dead-end is not necessarily fatal (as I will explain below), and it certainly has not deterred any of the true believers. The real problem, however, is that non-dualists
want to rely on empirical evidence -- or at least
some empirical evidence (such as scientific findings relating to sub-atomic particles). Yet there is no method that can be established, pursuant to the tenets of non-dualism, that can distinguish between that which is empirically valid and that which is not. In other words, there is no basis under which a non-dualist can point to
any empirical evidence and say: "
that is empirically true non-dualistically." As such, non-dualism cannot rest upon inductive/empirical evidence for its validity.
DEDUCTIVE/LOGICAL: There are two primary ways in which one can "prove" a proposition: either positively (proving that something
is) or negatively (proving that the opposite
cannot be). The second method relies on deduction/logic for its validity.
Now, the non-dualists want to prove non-dualism, in part, by means of a negative proof: i.e. that dualism is subject to a fatal logical flaw, to wit an infinite regress. As far as I can fathom, however, the non-dualists want to rely on a negative proof without necessarily accepting the logic that underpins that proof. For example, we have learned on this thread that an "infinite regress" is, at best, an instructive device, a tool that
"transcends logic/thought/language" (whatever that means). Furthermore, since non-dualists apparently do not accept the validity of the law of non-contradiction, any purported contradiction inherent in dualism is
not necessarily incompatible with the validity of non-dualism. In other words, as long as non-dualism rejects traditional logic, it must find some other means of demonstrating that non-dualism
excludes dualism.
As such, non-dualism cannot be proved by any deductive method, since non-dualism cannot distinguish between an
instructive logical flaw and a
fatal logical flaw.
INSIGHT/SPECIAL UNDERSTANDING: We now know that the knowledge of non-dualism is based on some kind of "insight" or "special understanding:" it is
twyvel's "blatantly obvious" and
fresco's "self-evidence." Under normal circumstances, we'd instantly recognize that this type of knowledge is simply a subset of the two preceding types of knowledge -- but we must take non-dualism on its own terms, and its own terms allow for this third type of knowledge.
There is, however, no method by which non-dualism can establish the validity of this type of knowledge. Indeed, there is no method by which non-dualism can distinguish a valid "insight" from a delusion. If, for example, one's "insight" confirms the truth of non-dualism, by what method are we to determine if someone else's "insight" which
refutes non-dualism is false? At this point in the discussion, it seems that the only method of confirmation available to the non-dualist is through determining how closely the "insight" coincides with the accepted tenets of non-dualism. In other words, an insight is valid insofar as it supports non-dualism, and it is invalid insofar as it doesn't.
Of course, one could plainly see that this is a simple case of question-begging: non-dualist "insight" merely proves that which is already assumed. For the non-dualist, however, such minor logical quibbles are of no moment: as explained above, since non-dualism rejects logic, it cannot be said to fall into any kind of logical paradox
on its own terms.
Yet the non-dualists who scorn logic when it is contrary to their position cannot embrace it when it supports their position. If "insight" is a valid means of "knowing" non-dualism, it is an equally valid means of "knowing" dualism. Furthermore, we know that non-dualism cannot claim to be "true" because dualism is "false," since such a contention rests, ultimately, upon the validity of the law of non-contradiction, and we've already seen that this law is, at best, a heuristic device in the hands of the non-dualists.
In sum, non-dualism cannot establish its validity
on its own terms. At most, it can offer something which is more or less persuasive, but which ultimately rests more on the fervor of its proponents than on the strength of its evidence.
EDIT: removed a redundancy.
On this I do agree with you. Really I meant no harm but you just reminded me of me and I thought I could say so.
