No Reality Outside Our Own Existence

Craven de Kere wrote:

Quote:
I am saying that "truth" is negotiable.

In that case the truism of whether or not truth is negotiable is also negotiable.

I think you may have hit upon the true "infinite regress" of the non-dualists.

Craven de Kere wrote:

Amen! Empowerment of enhancing vertical mindshare, essentially seizing functionalities and transitioning to enabling customized "greater-meta-metas" while deploying virtual portals and delienating and streamlining out-of-box deliverables.

People tell me that all the time.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Craven de Kere wrote:
fresco wrote:
I am saying that "truth" is negotiable.

In that case the truism of whether or not truth is negotiable is also negotiable.

I think you may have hit upon the true "infinite regress" of the non-dualists.

So it would seem, but then you have to remember that non-dualists may just abandon logic and critical thinking when it illustrates a flaw in their arguments.

fresco wrote:

The position cannot be "articulated" in a conventional manner. Language and logic themseves come under scrutiny

That's why this is so similar to blind religion.

When there's a logical flaw in the position.. well it just transcends logic. Laughing

When it can't be shown to be truthful ... truth becomes negotiable. Laughing

When the potition can't be supported... it's your fault for not believing. Laughing

Quote:

Craven de Kere wrote:
Amen! Empowerment of enhancing vertical mindshare, essentially seizing functionalities and transitioning to enabling customized "greater-meta-metas" while deploying virtual portals and delienating and streamlining out-of-box deliverables.

People tell me that all the time.

Then I guess they too have a Palm pilot program called "BS-O-Matic".

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Quote:

Well, either an infinite regress is a tool, in which case it presumably has nothing but heuristic value, or it is a logical paradox which casts doubt on an argument, in which case it is something more than merely instructive. Which is it?

Both, I would say. Obviously concepts can be and are instructive.

Quote:

In other words, even if dualism ultimately involves an infinite regress, so what?

Quote:
Quote:
That is of some consequence only if one accepts the law of non-contradiction. If, on the other hand, the law of non-contradiction is invalid, then contradictions are little more than trivial word games.

Quote:

Quote:
Everything that is not "not-Me."

fresco and JLNobody the questions are contradictory, are unanswerable, because, for example, in 1. the "what observes" and the >that-which-is-observing< are one.

To you it appears they are not.

Quote:

Quote:
Why can't the observer simply be self-observing?

Quote:

An eye cannot see itself seeing.

Quote:
Only because of the rather inconvenient structure of the human eye. Surely if our eyes were on stalks, like a crab, we wouldn't have these kinds of debates (perhaps crustaceans are all confirmed dualists as a result).

Even if your eye and what sees through it were on the end of a pole it still would not see itself seeing. The metaphor holds.

Quote:

But though we can't see ourselves seeing, we can certainly feel ourselves pinching.

I can feel the pinch but I cannot feel what feels it. I, as awareness, can smell the roses but I cannot smell what smells them,or otherwise observe/perceive that which observes/perceives.

Quote:

Consciousness..which IS you..cannot see itself.

Quote:
Why not?

Quote:

What kind of scrutiny?

Quote:
Analysis. Self inquiry/observation.

Quote:
Why is "self inquiry/observation" the standard?

Quote:

Quote:
But surely what you are saying here amounts to a series of logical deductions. Are you suggesting that non-dualists accept traditional logic?

Of course it is used by all and sundry and can bring one up to a certain point.

0 Replies

truth
I do not see "the abandonment of logic" as similar to blind religion. It might be characteristic of mysticism or inSIGHTFUL religion. "Religlion" in the common sense of the term, is an abandonment of experience and empiricism (notice the relevant juxtaposition of "blind" and "empiricism" as use of visual evidence). I have always considered religion, in this sense to be characterized by a kind of pseudo rationality and very devoted to the use of logic, as in theology.

0 Replies

twyvel wrote:

Both, I would say. Obviously concepts can be and are instructive.

Granted, but if that's all that they are, then that's all they can do. You, on the other hand, want us to believe that the "infinite regress" allegedly inherent in dualism demonstrates dualism's falsity. But if an infinite regress is nothing more than an "instructive concept," it cannot demonstrate the falsity of anything. At most, it would be a interesting curiosity.

twyvel wrote:

I don't think the law of non-contradiction is absolute, but it's still applicable in as much as we abode in a world of contrasting opposites, of dualisms, even if those dualisms are only apparent.

If the law of non-contradiction is not absolute, then it's not a law. If some contradictions are logically fatal, whereas other contradictions are not contradictions at all, then you need some higher-order logic to determine which is which. What is it?

twyvel wrote:

Nice try, twyvel, but it simply doesn't work that way. If dualism involves an infinite regress, then that fact is only fatal if infinite regresses involve a logical fallacy. And it can only be a logical fallacy if one accepts traditional logic, without which logical fallacies are neither logical nor fallacies.

You can't claim that dualism is subject to a logical fallacy and then, on that basis, claim that this points to the truth of non-dualism if non-dualism doesn't also accept the validity of traditional logic. To do otherwise would be to attempt to reach a valid conclusion through invalid premises.

twyvel wrote:

Hammer all you like, but you can't make a dent in dualism if you're using tools that you don't believe exist.

twyvel wrote:

Quote:
Quote:
Everything that is not "not-Me."

I'm sure that's what you wanted.

twyvel wrote:

The questions remain unanswered:

1.What observes >that-which-is-observing<?

2. And when observing >that-which-is-observing< what is observed?

Answer 1: the self-observant "I."
Answer 2: see answer 1, above.

Really, twyvel, this is all rather silly. Using this kind of reasoning, one could assert that knowledge doesn't exist because it is subject to an infinite regress (I know, and I know that I know, and I know that I know that I know ...). Surely, if the "observer who observes that which is observing" is a pure figment, then the "knower who knows that which is knowing" is equally figmentary.

twyvel wrote:

To me, and I'm sure to fresco and JLNobody the questions are contradictory, are unanswerable, because, for example, in 1. the "what observes" and the >that-which-is-observing< are one.

No, they're not contradictory and unanswerable, just jejeune.

twyvel wrote:

To you it appears they are not.

Quite the reverse. I'm firmly convinced that I am a single individual, both in my observing state and my observed state.

twyvel wrote:

Are you suggesting that dualists believe that something is either an object or a subject, but that it cannot be both?

twyvel wrote:

Even if your eye and what sees through it were on the end of a pole it still would not see itself seeing. The metaphor holds.

Tell that to a crab.

twyvel wrote:

I can feel the pinch but I cannot feel what feels it. I, as awareness, can smell the roses but I cannot smell what smells them,or otherwise observe/perceive that which observes/perceives.

Or, I presume, know what knows.

twyvel wrote:

How do you know that?

twyvel wrote:

Whatever works? So if I claimed that non-dualism was invalid, based upon my own personal belief and "self inquiry," that also would work?

twyvel wrote:

Is that an "instructive contradiction" or a "fatal contradiction?"

twyvel wrote:

Of course it is used by all and sundry and can bring one up to a certain point.

And that would be...?

0 Replies

Re: truth

JLNobody wrote:

I do not see "the abandonment of logic" as similar to blind religion.

That's cool. But if you see it this way then you will understand why it is.

0 Replies

Craven,

Linguistic gymnastics are irrelevant. "Languaging" is endemic to the dualist postion. (See my references above).

By missing or ignoring the fundamental issue that linguistic descriptions of nondualism are an orientation device (pointing) rather than axiomatic (factual) you are effectively throwing out the baby with the bathwater (the pointing finger).

Relevant "attacks" on nondualism can only be deemed viable if they question the internal coherence of the paradigm itself, or the applicabilty of explanatory models (such as Maturana's "autopoeisis") which are based on such a paradigm. (Again see my references above). Similarly, since "logical thought" is seen by writers such as Piaget as an outcome of a nondualistic biological process, arguments reminiscent of Russell's paradox about "truth" are ineffective.

0 Replies

There have been many "viable" questions on nondualism that "question the internal coherence of the paradigm itself".

But the way it seems to work for you is that you just respond by saying that it's "languaging" and "ineffective", reducing you to name-dropping as a way of an argument.

0 Replies

joefromcgicago

Quote:

Granted, but if that's all that they are, then that's all they can do. You, on the other hand, want us to believe that the "infinite regress" allegedly inherent in dualism demonstrates dualism's falsity. But if an infinite regress is nothing more than an "instructive concept," it cannot demonstrate the falsity of anything. At most, it would be a interesting curiosity.

It can demonstrate a flaw as much as any concept can.

If the infinite regress points to a falsity in dualism then that is what it does. To take it further one would have to take it up in/with/by another paradigm.

Quote:

I don't think the law of non-contradiction is absolute, but it's still applicable in as much as we abode in a world of contrasting opposites, of dualisms, even if those dualisms are only apparent.

Quote:
If the law of non-contradiction is not absolute, then it's not a law. If some contradictions are logically fatal, whereas other contradictions are not contradictions at all, then you need some higher-order logic to determine which is which. What is it?

Quote:

Quote:
Nice try, twyvel, but it simply doesn't work that way. If dualism involves an infinite regress, then that fact is only fatal if infinite regresses involve a logical fallacy. And it can only be a logical fallacy if one accepts traditional logic, without which logical fallacies are neither logical nor fallacies.

We are analyzing dualism. Language/thought is dualistic. This interaction is dualistic. And if in this dualism of the subject and object the "infinite regress" points out a logical fallacy and you don't accept it you don't accept it, but there it is.

Quote:

You can't claim that dualism is subject to a logical fallacy and then, on that basis, claim that this points to the truth of non-dualism if non-dualism doesn't also accept the validity of traditional logic. To do otherwise would be to attempt to reach a valid conclusion through invalid premises.

Dualism and nondualism aren't entities they are concepts they cannot accept or reject anything. Living in dualism, as we all do, if we come to the conclusion that the infinite regress of the subject is true then we have to live with that contradiction, as we live with a host of other contradictions and/or unknowns.

Quote:

Hammer all you like, but you can't make a dent in dualism if you're using tools that you don't believe exist.

Quote:

The questions remain unanswered:

1.What observes >that-which-is-observing<?

2. And when observing >that-which-is-observing< what is observed?

Quote:
Answer 1: the self-observant "I."
Answer 2: see answer 1, above.

Really, twyvel, this is all rather silly. Using this kind of reasoning, one could assert that knowledge doesn't exist because it is subject to an infinite regress (I know, and I know that I know, and I know that I know that I know ...). Surely, if the "observer who observes that which is observing" is a pure figment, then the "knower who knows that which is knowing" is equally figmentary.

Quote:

To me, and I'm sure to fresco and JLNobody the questions are contradictory, are unanswerable, because, for example, in 1. the "what observes" and the >that-which-is-observing< are one.

Quote:
No, they're not contradictory and unanswerable, just jejeune.

No, it's not jejeune, it's clear as a whistle.

Quote:

Quite the reverse. I'm firmly convinced that I am a single individual, both in my observing state and my observed state.

Quote:

Quote:
Are you suggesting that dualists believe that something is either an object or a subject, but that it cannot be both?

Quote:

Even if your eye and what sees through it were on the end of a pole it still would not see itself seeing. The metaphor holds.

Quote:
Tell that to a crab.p

Quote:

I can feel the pinch but I cannot feel what feels it. I, as awareness, can smell the roses but I cannot smell what smells them,or otherwise observe/perceive that which observes/perceives.

Quote:
Or, I presume, know what knows.

Correct.

Quote:

Quote:
How do you know that?

Quote:

Of course it is used by all and sundry and can bring one up to a certain point.

Quote:
And that would be...?

Transconceptual.

0 Replies

Craven,

With (well earned) respect, I think you need to at least glance at the references before dismissing them as "name dropping". Smile

0 Replies

I have fresco. They in no way address my qualms with the arguments herein.

If you think they do, then feel free to quote relevant passages and I'll evaluate them at that time..

0 Replies

twyvel and JLN,

An open question to you. Would you say that say that lack of understanding of "our position" is indicative of evidence for the celebrated proposition
that it is futile to attempt to "transmit" the system ?
The dualist essentially needs to "see" the inadequacies of his position before he seeks an alternative, but such "seeing" may involve an unnaceptable sacrifice of conditioned identity ?

0 Replies

O.K. Craven, would you care to comment on this?

"In philosophy the authoritarian dominance of the realist dogma (be it materialistic or metaphysical) has certainly been shaken by the manifested unreliability of political and social "truths" as well as by the revolution in the views of physics. But the aversion against models of cognition that explain knowledge as organism-dependent and even as the product of a closed circuit of internal operations, has by no means disappeared.

The comprehensive conceptual flow-chart that Maturana often shows during his lectures, has on the left (from the audience's point of view) the break-down of explanation with objectivity, and on the right side, explanation without objectivity. Whether, in one's own describing, one chooses to be on the left or the right side is, according to Maturana, a matter of emotion. As far as knowledge and language are concerned, the left side must cling to the belief that knowledge can capture objective reality and that language can refer to and signify it. The concept of objectivity that Maturana has in mind, is dependent on this belief. Maturana himself, if I have understood him correctly, does not share it, and places himself unequivocally on the right side, where objectivity is discarded ("put in parentheses") and the only realities possible are realities brought forth by an observer's operations of distinction." (Glaserfeld on Maturana)

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

twyvel and JLN,

An open question to you. Would you say that say that lack of understanding of "our position" is indicative of evidence for the celebrated proposition
that it is futile to attempt to "transmit" the system ?
The dualist essentially needs to "see" the inadequacies of his position before he seeks an alternative, but such "seeing" may involve an unnaceptable sacrifice of conditioned identity ?

That's so very rich on patronage and so very poor on substance.

You are, in effect, just blaming everyone who doesn't share your opinion for your lacking ability to articulate it.

Perhaps you would consider that the inadequacy is inherent to your position, and not that of everyone who doesn't agree with you.

0 Replies

fresco wrote:

O.K. Craven, would you care to comment on this?

Sure thing. It in no way whatsoever addresses the inadequacies of your position that have been pointed out herein and as such is the red herring that I fully expected it to be.

0 Replies

Craven,

You've commented on my post to JLN and twyvel, but declined to comment following your specific request for material.

No problem - if you reconsider your position at a later date let me know and I'll be pleased to re-engage.

0 Replies

I commented on it immediately above your post wherein you say I did not.

0 Replies

truth
Fresco, I answered your question to Tywvel and me but lost it. Here's an abbreviated repeat: I am very reluctant to debate Joe and Craven because of the inevitable frustration of attempting what requires cooperation not competition. My efforts to "transcend" my dualist world view has taken steady effort for about thirty years, and I am still far from anything that could be called enlightened. Why should I expect unmotivated people to understand what is essentially an ineffable perspective? There IS its intellectual application in theoretical physics--something I do not understand--but my version is a perspective available only in silence. On the other side, if my only perspective was that of non-dualism I would be in trouble, blissfully so, perhaps but in trouble. As I noted elsewhere, the ability to objectify the contents of experience has practical/evolutionary value. I would HAVE to make serious effort to grasp the dualist perspective. Non-dualism has no practical value--that I can think of now--but it leads to liberation from that "quiet desperation" suffered by most people, all of them dualists.
Of course, my reference to the ineffability of "my" nondualism will win me the accusation of evasiveness.

0 Replies

And it should, because you need not the cooperation of anything but your own mind to articulate your position. The requirements of others are, just like religions, tantamount to saying that one must have faith in your opinion in order for it to cease to be nonsensical.

JL, how is that any different from the position of a lunatic? He too might say that if one would only believe that he's Napoleon it'll all make sense.

The incessant attempts to pin the failures to support the position on those who do not share it is a low form of intellectual dishonesty. What we think of your positions has nothing whatsoever to do with your inability to support it beyond the repetitive calls to faith.

0 Replies

truth
Craven, with every utterance you demonstrate that you do not understand my perspective. If you could demonstrate that you do understand (but just disagree) then I might try to figure out what you are saying about Napolean. I'm afraid you read my last post while I was still in the process of editing it.

0 Replies

No Reality Outside Our Own Existence

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know