Who Are You, Really?

I appreciate the fact that I approach the world both dualistically and non-dualistically while you approach it only dualistically. Is that not so? If it were not so, you would have agreed with Fresco, Tywvel and me.

0 Replies

JLNobody & joefromchicago:
Although I too have discussed the same subject of communication with JLN ...exactly the same point where joe is at this time, , as I read your posts it would appear that we are all back to square one........it is not a question of communication, or of understanding, ....it is"simply"
a question of the nature of our world....is it a non-dualistic reality or is it a dualistic reality?
joefrom chicago, like myself, prefer to look at the world around us exactly as it comes across to us and influences are lives....dualistically.
Accordingly, a non-dualistic aproach is an intellectual abberation of sorts, having mystical
overtones to non-idealists.

0 Replies

alikimr wrote:

Who you really are,(i.e.,what your defining personality is), is who all relevant persons in your life perceive you to be, ....not who you believe yourself to be. Do you agree with this thesis?

No, I do not agree. I am who I am regardless of how others perceive me. They can only judge me from my words and behavior (which may be a pretense) and in light of their own prejudices. However I agree that some mental illnesses can cause people to have a skewed view of themselves and in those cases friends, family, or psychologists may have a better understanding of the person.

0 Replies

twyvel wrote:

twyvel, we have been over this many times. You still cling to those old fallacies of mysticism and refuse to acknowledge recent findings on how the brain generates consciousness.

Yes, consciousness is observable, directly by the conscious person and indirectly by others through brain scans and behavior. Consciousness is indeed something, just as surely as love and other intangibles that are produced by the biochemistry of human beings. Yes, the ego is part of consciousness. Yes, that which observes can be objectified, and that which is observed can also be the subject which observes.

Consciousness is produced by an iterative process that melds data on body states (core consciousness), sensory data, and stored information to generate the autobiographical self. Antonio Damasio's book "The Feeling of What Happens" describes the process in more detail. Susan Blackmore also wrote an excellent book on Consciousness that might be more to your taste. It makes no sense to cling to the guesses of ancient sages when current researchers have access to so much new data.

Some of us really do understand your arguments regarding non-dualism, but find it necessary to reject them because they conflict with the findings of neuroscience, are illogical, and do not contribute anything at all to our understanding of the brain and consciousness.

0 Replies

JLN, one of these might be the thread you were looking for. I do not have time to go through each one page by page but they seem the most likely suspects.
No Reality Outside Our Own Existence
Absolute determinism and the illusion of free will
Is Reality a Social Construction?

I do not have to view the world from a non-dualism perspective to obtain sufficient information to determine whose viewpoint is more likely to be the correct one. While I do not deny the non-dualistic experience, I do not believe that it reflects Reality any more than a drug-induced hallucination or that it has any Truths to reveal to initiates that could not be better learned from the principles of science.

0 Replies

Terry:
You have the cool patience and articulation to express the non-dualism experience
so precisely, and as many of us "see" it to be.
It is not a question of understanding
what non-dualism, or a "non-dualism state" is.......
that is understandable enough. It is purely a rejection of its mystical shroud, so akin to religious
experiences, like revelations or being born again, etc.

0 Replies

Alikimr, I wish we could drop the term "mystical" here. It has become a term so loaded with images of New Age altered state mental phenomena. Very prejudicial. If anything our minds, insofar as they PERCEIVE a world of sensations, are ALTERED by conceptions inherited culturally. You ask if the nature of our world is dualistic or non-dualistic. It is both: before reflection, before we categorize our immediate experience, it is non-dualistic (for YOU as well as for me). But we automatically interpret and organize this experience dualistically. That is the nature of language and thought, to be dualistic. SO, only when we look with a kind of "immaculate perception", usually in a meditative practice of some sort (ironically, but not frequently, when high), do we see our experience in an unaltered state. "Mysticism" is not a shroud on our consciousness; it is the removal of a shroud of illusions--meaningful and useful illusions I grant you, but illusions in any case because they are cultural fabrications. These fabrications vary from society to society (even though some are near universal, they are still fabrications). Non-dualism is not an intellectual abberation, as you imply; it is a completely non-intellectual orientation. It transcends intellect. As soon as we try to talk about the non-dualistic perspective we immediately enter the dualistic mode. There's no getting around it. That is why zen buddhists and taoists know that they really should keep quiet. I wish I could.
Terry, I do not see how Twyvel's central point is in any way ILlogical; it is Alogical, strictly descriptive. And I can't imagine how it is contradicted by the findings of neuroscience. It does not seem to have anything to do with them. I'll bet that neuroscientific findings do not contradict his description of consciousness. It certainly does not "prove" the ontological reality of dualism. At most it will someday show us why we so readily behave dualistically.
I'm delighted that you do not deny the non-dualistic experience, because it is the foundation of your consciousness. I do not believe that dualism reflects Reality any more than a drug-induced hallucination. Both are forms of dreaming, although the pragmatic implications of non-drug induced dualism are superior to those of dope states, at least usually. Hitler was not taking drugs when he ordered the Holocaust. And, my last point: one does not obtain INFORMATION in the form of knowledge or ideas in the state of non-dualistic meditation. Science is the best, if not the only, avenue to such knowledge (in the sense of abstract principles and laws ABOUT life), but it changes the person, permitting a more harmonious and less delusional orientation toward experience.
Oh, and thanks for the links. I think they are the ones.

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

I appreciate the fact that I approach the world both dualistically and non-dualistically while you approach it only dualistically. Is that not so?

No, that is not so at all. We both approach the world dualistically. And you certainly cannot convince me otherwise, since, as I have explained many times in the past, you have no basis for distinguishing your purported "non-dualistic" experiences from hallucinations or delusions.

0 Replies

alikimr wrote:

joefrom chicago, like myself, prefer to look at the world around us exactly as it comes across to us and influences are lives....dualistically.

I do not "prefer" to look at the world dualistically. Rather, logic and common sense compel me to do so.

0 Replies

Joe, I agree: logic and common sense compel you (me too) to define events and situations dualistically. That's because they do not come to us dualistically; we must make them so. You say that we both approach the world dualistically and that I cannot convince you otherwise. Of course I can't. Nor do I wish to. The non-dualistic orientation is a completely passive one. If you or I stayed in our pre-reflective state, we would die as a consequence of inactivity. We MUST treat the world in terms of dualisms and objectifications. But to be "awakened" from these delusions, however necessary they are, is a great psycho-spiritual benefit. You say that I have no basis for distinguishing my purported non-dualistic experiences from hallucinations or delusions. And you DO have a basis for distinguishing (our) dualistic experiences from hallucinations or delusions? Of course you will show me how yours are consistent with logic and "empirical" evidence, and I will respond that you are begging the question because they are part of the delusion, etc. etc. and we'll end up in limbo forever at each others' throats. At least I will know it's a dream.

0 Replies

Terry wrote:

Quote:

twyvel, we have been over this many times. You still cling to those old fallacies of mysticism and refuse to acknowledge recent findings on how the brain generates consciousness.

Yes, consciousness is observable, directly by the conscious person and indirectly by others through brain scans and behavior. Consciousness is indeed something, just as surely as love and other intangibles that are produced by the biochemistry of human beings. Yes, the ego is part of consciousness. Yes, that which observes can be objectified, and that which is observed can also be the subject which observes.

No Terry you are incorrect. And I would think (hope) that most neuroscientists would disagree with your above. Consciousness is one of the biggest mysteries there is. Hers is an excerpt:

Consciousness is not observable. Brain scans and behavior are not consciousness, please see the difference.

If that which observes can be observed what is it that is observed?

Part of the problem is you appear not to understand/appreciate the problem of consciousness. There are literally hundreds if not thousands of folks, worldwide working on the problem of consciousness; scientists, philosophers etc. And as yet they simply don't know what consciousness is, in as much as there is an attempt to prove that it >is< something.

There is a distinction between the easy problems and the hard problem of consciousness:

http://jamaica.u.arizona.edu/~chalmers/papers/facing.html

[excerpt]

"There is not just one problem of consciousness. "Consciousness" is an ambiguous term, referring to many different phenomena. Each of these phenomena needs to be explained, but some are easier to explain than others. At the start, it is useful to divide the associated problems of consciousness into "hard" and "easy" problems. The easy problems of consciousness are those that seem directly susceptible to the standard methods of cognitive science, whereby a phenomenon is explained in terms of computational or neural mechanisms. The hard problems are those that seem to resist those methods."

..i.e. experiences.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

alikimr wrote:
joefrom chicago, like myself, prefer to look at the world around us exactly as it comes across to us and influences are lives....dualistically.

I do not "prefer" to look at the world dualistically. Rather, logic and common sense compel me to do so.

JLN

joefromchicago wrote:

JLNobody wrote:
I appreciate the fact that I approach the world both dualistically and non-dualistically while you approach it only dualistically. Is that not so?

No, that is not so at all. We both approach the world dualistically. And you certainly cannot convince me otherwise, since, as I have explained many times in the past, you have no basis for distinguishing your purported "non-dualistic" experiences from hallucinations or delusions.

No.

We all

0 Replies

twyvel wrote:

JLN put it, the you/I is a character >in< the dream/delusion.

Are you suggesting that it is logically impossible for one "element of the dualism" to view the world dualistically, or are you saying that it is impossible empirically?

twyvel wrote:

"Fail to be convinced" is more like it.

twyvel wrote:

The ego/body self doesn't create or observe dualism, rather, due to its presence dualism is created. Do you see the distinction?

No. Given that you dispute the entire notion of dualism, I don't see how you can say that anything "creates dualism."

twyvel wrote:

Nonsense.

twyvel wrote:

Mystical nonsense.

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Quote:

Are you suggesting that it is logically impossible for one "element of the dualism" to view the world dualistically, or are you saying that it is impossible empirically?

Quote:

Quote:
"Fail to be convinced" is more like it.

It's not a matter of being convinced, it's a matter of thinking it through yourself.

Quote:

Quote:
Nonsense.

No, it's actually clear thinking.

0 Replies

twyvel wrote:

To the extent that the above is or could be true, it is premised on the law of non-contradiction. Since, however, you deny the validity of the law of non-contradiction, the above cannot be true (or, rather, it is equally true and false, and thus it is meaningless).

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Quote:

To the extent that the above is or could be true, it is premised on the law of non-contradiction. Since, however, you deny the validity of the law of non-contradiction, the above cannot be true (or, rather, it is equally true and false, and thus it is meaningless).

can be true.

Ultimately everything, all knowledge can be considered meaningless since it is all construction, but that is hardly the present issue at hand.

0 Replies

twyvel wrote:

But that's the point.

My above is about dualism (not nondualism) and the contradictions inherent in it. If in our analysis of subject-object dualism we find a contradiction that is contrary to the law of non-contradiction then the dualism fails, since it is based on that law. That's the issue, not my nondual position.

There are two primary ways to refute a theory: to show that it fails on its own terms, or that it fails according to some other standard. Thus a Copernican could demonstrate the falsity of the Ptolemaic theory of the universe in Ptolemaic terms, even if the Copernican believed that it was also false on the basis of the Copernican model. It is, therefore, legitimate for a non-dualist to argue that dualism fails because it contains an inherent contradiction, even if the non-dualist ultimately believes that non-dualism is a better model of reality.

The problem for you, twyvel, is not that you attempt to show that dualism suffers from a fatal contradiction: it's that you attempt to do so while still denying the validity of the law of non-contradiction. You can argue that dualism is inherently contradictory, but even if you proved your case (which you haven't -- not by a long shot), you'd still be left with nothing. Your denial of the law of non-contradiction leaves dualism with a way out: even if it is contradictory on its face, contradiction doesn't matter. If, in other words, dualism is fatally contradictory, but the law of non-contradiction is invalid, then dualism can still be true. You think that you have caught dualism in a logical net, but you don't realize that the net has a huge hole in it that you made yourself.

twyvel wrote:

You've been peddling these wares for quite some time, but I'm beginning to suspect that it is nothing more than a strawman argument: what philosopher, after all, explains dualism in this fashion?

twyvel wrote:

So my above can be true.

Without the law of non-contradiction, it doesn't matter if what you say can be true, since anything that is true can also be false.

twyvel wrote:

Ultimately everything, all knowledge can be considered meaningless since it is all construction, but that is hardly the present issue at hand.

If you sincerely believe this, then why are you bothering to argue anything at all? Why aren't you, like rufio, merely grunting and pointing?

0 Replies

joefromchicago wrote:

Quote:

The problem for you, twyvel, is not that you attempt to show that dualism suffers from a fatal contradiction: it's that you attempt to do so while still denying the validity of the law of non-contradiction. You can argue that dualism is inherently contradictory, but even if you proved your case (which you haven't -- not by a long shot), you'd still be left with nothing. Your denial of the law of non-contradiction leaves dualism with a way out: even if it is contradictory on its face, contradiction doesn't matter. If, in other words, dualism is fatally contradictory, but the law of non-contradiction is invalid, then dualism can still be true. You think that you have caught dualism in a logical net, but you don't realize that the net has a huge hole in it that you made yourself.

No, you are wrong joefromchicago.

Anyone with any position can put forward this critique of dualism, including dualists. As a theory, that dualism contradicts its own law of non-contradiction has nothing to do with my nondual position or anyone else's position; it fails on its own terms. In fact, I suspect that many dualists having come to the understanding of the perpetual regression of the subject, whether every subject that is found turns out to be another object, have abandoned their dualism.

Quote:

Quote:
You've been peddling these wares for quite some time,

Probably not nearly as long as you have been peddling dualism, directly and indirectly. But then so what?

Quote:

but I'm beginning to suspect that it is nothing more than a strawman argument:

That's just an unsupported, unfounded accusation. If you can see a strawman you would have probably pointed it out rather then merely making the accusation.

0 Replies

twyvel wrote:

Anyone with any position can put forward this critique of dualism, including dualists. As a theory, that dualism contradicts its own law of non-contradiction has nothing to do with my nondual position or anyone else's position; it fails on its own terms.

Re-read my previous post:

You can argue that dualism is inherently contradictory, but [b]even if you proved your case[/b] (which you haven't -- not by a long shot), [b]you'd still be left with nothing[/b]. Your denial of the law of non-contradiction leaves dualism with a way out: even if it is contradictory on its face, contradiction doesn't matter.As you can see, I have already addressed the possibility that you might be right. But even if dualism is inherently, and thus fatally, contradictory, it simply doesn't matter, since you deny the possibility of fatal contradictions. Normally, an argument that undercuts a theory leaves the theory in doubt. In your case, however, any argument that you might make that undercuts dualism merely leaves doubt in doubt.

twyvel wrote:

In fact, I suspect that many dualists having come to the understanding of the perpetual regression of the subject, whether every subject that is found turns out to be another object, have abandoned their dualism.

That's about the weakest example of an argumentum ad populum I've ever seen.

twyvel wrote:

Quote:
but I'm beginning to suspect that it is nothing more than a strawman argument:

That's just an unsupported, unfounded accusation. If you can see a strawman you would have probably pointed it out rather then merely making the accusation.

Just as I suspected. You have fashioned the definition of dualism yourself just so you could knock it down. A classic strawman argument.

0 Replies

We began this thread with a consideration of the nature of our social and private identities, a psychological-sociological problem. But by page two, I opened Pandora's Box with reference to the question of the nature of ego/self. From that point, we have relived the struggles seen on previous threads:for example, "Is reality a Social Construction?", "Absolute Determinism and the Illusion of Free Will," and "No Reality Outside our own Existence?" The debate continued mainly between Joefromchicago and Twyvel. Alikimr and I didn't debate so much as converse. Joe continued with his fixation on logic, as if it provided a picture of Reality, and Twyvel attempted, once again, to lay out for us the unreality of the "observer" in subject-object relations. I find it interesting that so few people can recognize the point of his presentation, i.e., the infinite regression involved in the fictitious third person's" observation of the self-object relation--a continuous regression because the third person observer becomes the subject to the object set (subject-object).
My sense of the non-dualistic nature of immediate experience (the epistemological and ontological reality) is not a philosophical (certainly not a logical) achievement; it is attained mainly during meditation when it becomes intuitively "obvious" that I AM the content of experience, when it becomes "obvious," as I noted earlier, that I AM my experience, not a subject to which they happen. This awareness is pertinent to the original consideration of the thread. If I am my experience, I am at least fundamentally free from being whatever my ego and the world of "others" say I am. I am the world I experience, and that world has no natural boundaries, meaning that I am everything. And so are you. But to say that I am everything is to say that I am nothing as well.
JLNobody

0 Replies

Who Are You, Really?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know