No Reality Outside Our Own Existence

Craven, I do not think that "the dualist camp" has grounds for comparing the "non-dualist camp" to a religious faith.

Craven,

If you are calling "transcendence of self" - "religious"

The position cannot be "articulated" in a conventional manner.

I merely argued that their refusal to even attempt to "grasp" the non-dualist perspective ....

Remember, my last point: We, the non-dualist, have come to our position in our adult years after considerable effort and study.

But nor is it "the Emperors New Clothes" because adherents "agree" on the details of "the garment".

This agreement is "experiential". Try describing the taste of bananas to somebody whose never tasted one. Not easy !

Yes, I'll be happy to explain it to you.

See, you are trying to write off the criticism of your use of murkiness to feign depth through the "naive realism" rejoinder.

Yes, you are creating straw men from what I did not say. That is the epitomal exampel of a straw man.

So again for your edification:

You are grasping at straws. You resort to a quip you use against Joe for Joes position despite the fact that I've never espoused that position once on these boards.

twyvel, thank you for illustrating another shoddy debate tactic. "You have said nothing".

This is belied by the fact that you are engaged in response twyvel and as such is a transparent tactic.

"When outmatched claim the opponent isn't even there."

It's actually neither. It's criticism of your tendency to use logical fallacy in your arguments and ambiguity to mask your inadequacies insofar as your position is concerned.

The question is will it be recognized when you decide to engage?

This murky---depth dichotomy of yours is simply unsupported accusations.

Quote:

No it's not. It's supported right here. Murkiness is the substitute for substance yet again.

I think you're drowning in your own pseudo critics.

Quote:

That makes no sense twyvel. It would make more sense if you used the word critiques instead of critics but even then wouldn't make sense.

It's just another attempt to deflect through a nonsensical quip.

Is this typical of you? Going around and around in circles but never getting to the point?

Focus Craven focus.

What is the criticism? What is your point?

Quote:

The point is that you are engaging in wannabe-online-philosopher and to mask your inadequacies you use abiguity and logical fallacy.

Hummm………..and in bold at that.

Quote:

Here's a good example. You resort to commenting on the font instead of the content. This is typical evasion.

Back it up. Or back it down.

Quote:

I have backed it up. Reducing you to things like commenting on the font and claiming nothing is there.

Your decision to debate at this level reinforces the point bringing out exactly what I'd accused you of doing.

Point out the murkiness, keeping in mind what is murky to you is not murky to others.

Naïve realism is a proper term, look it up.

All I have responded to so far from you is your term philoso-babble. I am saying it is a simplistic, pseudo response. No depth, no getting into the issue.

What sentences? What are you specifically refereing to?

For the humteenth time, WHAT IS IT THAT IS MURKY?

You are like someone yelling in the dark but will not say what it is that upsets you so.

And have not backed it up except with more accusations. You have yet to engage the issue of this thread Craven.

The summary of your posts on this thread so far amounts to accusations of deceptions, probably disguising a lack of understanding.

Craven, I used the phrase, "Believing is seeing" as a general epistemological principle, not in the context of "grasping" the non-dualist position.

And I AM arguing, I confess, that the dualists are rejecting the non-dualist perpective because they cannot take that perspective (cannot "grasp" it).

We seem only to be trying win a contest for which there is no tangible prize. A bit childish if you ask me.

No U-turn implied ! I also agree with Heliotrope. I was merely trying to draw him out, and save myself the job of possible repetition from other threads.

JLNobody wrote:

Craven, I used the phrase, "Believing is seeing" as a general epistemological principle, not in the context of "grasping" the non-dualist position.

I actually hadn't seen you use it and had coined it to describe the fallacious arguments you are proposing. That you say you'd actually said it is telling though.

JL, so when you dismiss everyone who disagrees with you as somehow blind to your enlightened position you are correct to do so.

But when others point out the intellectual bankrupcy of such methods they are childish?

Well JL, it seems that the only way to avoid being childish by your estimation is to see things your way and to discuss things your way.

Anything else is blind and childish.

"Anyone who does not see the emperor's clothes is childish"

This is just more of the same.