No Reality Outside Our Own Existence

No.

To assert a fact is to assert that one "knows" the basis of that assertion. If it were otherwise, there would be no distinction between factual assertions and fictive statements. That's why I've been so insistent on determining how the non-dualists here "know" what they assert: I've seen a lot of assertions, but I've seen very little basis for those assertions.

To state, then, that "non-dualism is the absence of dualism" immediately raises the question: "how do you know that?" And once we've asked that question, we're back to the points that I raised in my previous post. In particular, if you are suggesting that non-dualism and dualism are contradictories, then your assertion can only be true if the law of non-contradiction is true, for if the law of non-contradiction is invalid there would be no logical inconsistency in the co-existence of dualism and non-dualism.

73 years from now, I'll be 39.





[size=7]feet under.[/size]

I promised one of my selves that that there was nothing further to say on this thread....see how far that got me !

1. Let Joe define what he means by "knowledge" without assuming an objective reality.

2. I am still waiting for someone (Terry) to take up the challenge of discussing non-dualistic "science" from the point of "coherence" not "validity".

Until such time as either or both of these are addressed I contend that nothing further of significance can be said.

I am firmly convinced that there is an objective reality. Whether my conviction rests on an assumption or on some manner of proof is largely immaterial to this discussion, but I will concede, for the sake of argument, that it rests on an assumption.

So what?

If you contend that dualism is somehow logically flawed because it rests on an assumption of reality, I can only respond: on what does your logic rest? If you contend that non-dualism relies on some sort of "proof," rather than on an equivalent assumption, I would ask: how do you know? And if you contend that the disproof of dualism leaves non-dualism as the only alternative, I must again state: that's only true if you accept the law of non-contradiction.

Whether objective reality rests on an assumption or on a proof, it is the only thing that allows us to say anything meaningful. Without it, we are left spouting nothing but nonsense. Or, to put it more accurately, you are left spouting nothing but nonsense.


That moment passed quite a while ago.

Joe, I've read your long post and response to Fresco. Wow, speaking of fervor. You make us work too hard, but I guess I should thank you since that's one of the reasons I'm here. My problem is that your offerings rest to a very large extent on misapprehensions of our position, and reflect your incessant need to pour our comments into a framework which renders them absurd. I'll try to respond to a few of them--this will require a lot of scrolling up and down since my printer's broken and I don't want to learn how to cut and paste. It's too lazy a method of discourse.
You responded to Fresco's question about knowledge and objective reality with a firm assertion that you "believe" the latter does exist. I say "believe" because it is what you have concluded from assumption and, perhaps, some "proof." I agree. It's one of my few contentions with Twyevel, which I am sure is more appearance than reality. He takes a more idealist position. I feel there is "Reality" but that I cannot prove it either empirically or logically. It IS to me something that is "self-evident", and I base this "feeling" on my private on-going experience. My problem is that this experience of the flow of experience, as such, is not something subject to either inductive or deductive proof. Those are un-needed tools. My experience is sufficient for me. I do not have Descartes' technical "doubt" about existence. His "cogito" (in "cogito ergo sum") refers, both to doubting and thinking. As I understand it, in Latin he would have to have said, 'puto" (infinitive: putare) if he meant only "I think". Cogito means "recognize", "grasp" or "apprehend". His statement refers, by extension, to doubting as a manifestation of thought, ergo he exists/is. I need no such proof. The ontological status of existence is non-problematical for me, but the problem of "who" exists IS problematical. True self knowledge is knowledge of Reality because my experience is my best access to Reality: indeed, they are isomorphic. This is the heart of the demonstration of the infinite regression notion for us non-dualists. It is not intended to disprove the validity of dualism in all its uses, only to demonstrate the empirical emptiness of the self notion. of the ontological reality of the subject-object split, and the observability of the observer. It is not intended as a non-dualistic disproof of dualism. As far as I'm concerned--and here I agree with Twyvel whole-heartedly--they are both mere notions. Dualism is useful but illusory; non-dualism is merely the absence of dualism, the experience is Reality unmediated by language and logic. I have no need to "prove" it is valid; it just IS, just as my experience of reality just is. Actually, I misphrased that: I shouldn't say my experience OF reality--that's dualistic--[my] experience IS [my] Reality. Notice the brackets. Some philosophers (Nagarguna's the most ancient and famous, I think) have sought to "disprove" the accuracy of dualistic descriptions of the world--generally favoring a more dialectical approach, one which focuses on mutual causation. And particle theorists, apparently, are finding it to be an obstacle to exploration in their field. To me, however, dualism is useful (indeed, essential to human survival) but limited. Non-dualism (i.e., direct unmediated experience) is materially useless but spiritually essential. You ask how I know that non-dualism is the absence of dualism. I fail to understand what that means. I experience dualism all the time; then I experience its absence, especially in meditative states. What need is there to "prove" the difference? Because YOU don't think I can see those differences? Non-dualism, as I've said before, has to do with private concrete, non-abstract and pre-reflective experience. I've no need really to go public with it. I could never "prove" its existence any more than I can prove to a congenitally blind man that I experience redness. Beyond the level of conventional verbage, he cannot know what I mean by redness. A successful restoration of his optic nerve, however, may SHOW him what I mean. There is no other way. I am sorry to say--and I mean this as no personal insult; it is true of most people--that you are both advantaged by your skill with logic and disadvantage by it. At least that is so to the extent that you inhibit intuitions and wild exploration because of your exclusive dedication to formal and public methods. Humans have acquired knowledge long before the development of Western logic and formal science--it just took MUCH longer (intuition and trial-and-error are effective but inefficient). And if logic and science were essential to the attainment of knowledge, how could humankind ever have achieved the knowledge of logic and science before they existed? I think logic grew out of illogical statements and science out of magical activities. Surely Science is not a full-blown consequence of scientific experimental research. If anything, science on the ground tends to be ultra-conservative now that it exists. It is the philosophers of science who challenge its system of assumptions. And not all of them are dualists.
I'd better post this before I lose it. I'll continue in my next post.

Oh, before I continue (I've got other things to do today), you accuse Fresco of "spouting nonsense". Now if he makes sense to me and Twyvel, does that not suggest that his utterances are nonsensical to you because of YOUR perspective, or your inability to enter into his perspective? I know you are going to assert that we understand his "nonsense" because of our non-dualistic perspective which also renders OUR untterances nonsensical, but I hope you will do better than that.

JLN is it possible to be inbetween, to not know where you are yet and then finally get there?

Based on your post I would say I tend toward you point of but do not have the ability to express what I might think to you are any one else. Is it because I have not looked inward to the degree that you have. Can I learn or have self knowledge at this age.

P.S. I love this "And if logic and science were essential to the attainment of knowledge, how could humankind ever have achieved the knowledge of logic and science before they existed? I think logic grew out of illogical statements and science out of magical activities."

If I thought that I had misapprehended your position, JLN, I suppose I might feel compelled to reply at length to your detailed posts. But your latest offerings make it quite clear to me that I understand your argument even more accurately than I had previously thought. Indeed, I was somewhat surprised that your post so thoroughly confirmed my assumptions regarding the non-dualist position. As such, I'll only respond to a few points:


Well, sometimes it is, and sometimes it isn't.


I agree on the first point, I offer no opinion on the second.


I have no idea if you can see those differences or not. As I have said before, there's no way to know if you (or I) have experienced non-duality. If you are convinced that you have experienced non-duality, then I am very happy for you. If, on the other hand, you expect me to believe that you experienced non-duality rather than some kind of psychotic delusion, then you'll have to do more than merely assert that you experienced it.


Well, for someone with no need to share the gospel of non-dualism, you're certainly not hiding your light under a bushel basket.


I hate to dash your hopes.

Joe, you DON'T appear to understand what I mean by non-dualism. You say that "If...you expect me to believe that you experienced non-duality rather than some kind of psychotic delusion, then you'll have to do more tham merely assert that you experienced it." You still don't understand that YOU too experience non-dualistically all the time: the pre-reflective instant before you cast meaning onto your sensual perceptions. And neither one of us is psychotic in doing that. I'm not talking about some grand earth-shaking altered state of mind. I'm talking about one's ordinary state of mind when he sees past, or through, the ideas he has ABOUT the contents of normal experience. Life is not just ABOUT experience; it is also the experience itself. And even the thoughts we have about experiences are experience as well. You are non-dualistic whether you like it or not. It is not something one adds to his life experience. Dualism is what is added. And the absence of dualism, or that time before it takes over one's experience, is non-dualism.
p.s., it has been said that the unexamined life is not worth living. The non-dualist might add that the unlived life is not worth examining.

I picked up a book at random yesterday from my shelf and read in the introduction...

"...the abilityof any human to see things "objectively"came under attack recently from an unexpected quarter, namely science itself. Quantum physics has shown to the satisfaction of most physicists that the reality we observe is strangely altered by the act of observation. Consciousness seems not an observer but a participant in the workings of the world: mind and matter, subject and object are no longer separate: somehow subtly they interact."
(The Death of Forever. 1991 Reanney)

I certainly didn't buy this book knowing this content, which is typical of many books discussing the mind. The question is would the "dualist" reject this book having read that introduction ? Would s/he not be intrigued sufficiently to explore further ?

------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BTW. Joe, the rejoinder to your "assumption- so what" is that having admitted the possibility of your assumption you need to examine how "logic" itself owes its "coherence" to that assumption (e.g. the "actuality" of set boundaries). It seems "self-evident" (ho ho) that such an examination cannot use "logic "per se.
This is where my second question above comes to the fore.

(Later Edit) You have of course avoided a definition of "knowledge." Mine might read "knowledge is the degree of confidence with which I predict the outcome of an interaction". According to this there are no "facts", only successes in prediction with "success" being subjectively or consentually evaluated. The predictive process itself can of course utilize binary logic as one type of mechanism if the subject or consensus assumes "set boundaries" are relatively fixed for the duration of the observation.

So what?

If logic is based on the same set of assumptions as is knowledge, what does that matter in terms of non-dualism? It certainly doesn't call dualism into question, nor does it establish the truth of non-dualism.


Only because it wasn't necessary, given that you premised your question on the impossibility of providing a definition "without assuming an objective reality." I chose to address the premise of your question, since answering the question simpliciter would have implied acceptance of the premise.

But, to address your question directly, I'll simply advert to a widely accepted definition: Knowledge is justified true belief.


Well, your definition seems to rest as much on an assumption of objective reality as any dualist's definition. Certainly, there can be no notion of "interaction" without some notion of things "interacting." If there is no distinction between subject and object, however, there can be no such thing as "interaction." Likewise, there can be no concept of "prediction" unless you assume the unidirectional nature of time and the fundamental relationship of cause and effect. Yet these concepts are also of questionable validity in a non-dualistic universe.


No doubt, fresco, you wish to use binary logic when it suits your purposes, just as you ignore it when it doesn't (Kosko does the same thing). But you have offered no criteria for determining when such logic is appropriate and when it is useless. As such, your logic is just as arbitrary as your "self-evident" observations.

Joe.

Clever move, using several quotation boxes in an attempt to destroy the semantic field ! (I recommend M. A. K. Halliday's views on "grammar" which stresses total context as opposed to "sentences")

All linguistic descriptions are dualistic in essence but the difference between my usage and yours is that I never use the word "truth" and I stress the "subjectivity" and "consentuality" of all terms.
By acknowledging that the terms have "questionable validity" from a nondualistic position you are merely underlining the strength of such a position, which draws attention to the limits of usage of such terms.
I.e. "(Binary)Logic" is useful where it "works" !...(clearly not at the cutting edge of physics/reality research and there wouldn't be any Koscos if there were no problem !)

If instead of an incestuous reliance on "truth" and "validity" you took up the term "coherence" and the challenge of question 2 above, your case might be stronger.

Breaking up the semantic field? Is that what I was doing? Interesting. I confess I feel a bit like Moliere's Monsieur Jourdain, who didn't realize that he had been speaking prose all his life. I must remember that the next time twyvel breaks up my semantic field.


I see. So when your position is strong, it's strong, and when your position is weak, it's also strong. Would that we all could frame the debate in such terms, that even the most glaring weaknesses are regarded as evidence of strength.


Question 2 was not directed to me. I am sufficiently occupied dealing with questions that I have actually been asked.

Let me summarize some of my perspective in metaphor--don't laugh.
Language, logic, science, art, philosophy, literature, etc. do not provide us with WINDOWS through which we passively see the objective world; they are, instead, tools by which we actively construct PICTURES of our world. The standards to be met in this process are, as Fresco notes, coherence (the parts are mutually supportive or non-contradictory) and intersubjective consensus (the picture looks legitimate to everyone--it complies with the canons of science/philosophy and/or the dictates of common sense).

(edited)

Sorry JLN could not resist.

Joanne, I KNEW IT!

JLN,

Yes... the problem with the metaphor "construction" is that it implies a certain degree of a priorism on one pole of the interaction.
The subtle issue of the origin and mechanism of "structural form" is the key issue of some of the mathematical models I have referred to earlier. The coherence of such models lies in their success or otherwise of explaining the "spontaneous" occurence of structure which is neither "within" nor "without", and the subsequent maintenance of such structure within the flux. (Capra recommended here). One interesting idea therefrom concerns the concept of "equilibrium", because common sense might assume this to be central to the endurance of "structure" wheras it is argued that "disequilibrium" is the case !

Regards fresco
(some problems with my ISP might delay my posts).

Fresco, this is one of those posts that I will have to read many times, often after periods of rest. Such is the case with some of Twyvel's posts. As I told Twyvel, I think it would be wonderful if the three of us, together with others, such as Coluber, Cyracuz, Rosborne, BoGoWo, and others who seem less averse to nondualism in its many expressions. It would be like having a graduate seminar on aspects of non-dualism (what a title for a book). I think it would be a very beneficial experience.

JLN,

Sorry if the last was a bit cryptic. Google references to "Capra Systems Dynamics" might help.

BTW Several years ago I did organize a seminar on "esoteric philosophers" here in the UK which was quite successful. We used a campus venue with accommodation and catering facilities. I chose a scenic location to include a "silent walking experience" with a debriefing session. Let me know if you decide to proceed !

Fresco, actually I was thinking of something much less grand. I think I painted too ambitious a picture when I used the term, "graduate seminar." I used to conduct my seminars VERY informally--at a bar-restaurant around the corner form the university in a reserved patio. It was popular (I'm sure the boos, food and relaxed setting had something to do with that), but people had to come prepared under threat of returning to the confined grey classrooms.