Progress in consciousness?

JLN

Agreed - and we are not specifically obliged to move to the "mystical level" except for what we might say is the intellectual conjoint of an "emotional experience" of holistic communion of self/world.

What I am getting at is that even from a "scientific viewpoint" modern concepts such as "dark material" which are deemed to account for a large percentage of "the universe" is so named as "dark" by "us" because there are always limits to our methods of "scientific rationality" beyond which "we" cannot penetrate...and such may always irrevocably be the case as this "us-universe" evolves over that continuum which the "us" calls "time".

Or more concisely, you are saying that science will never explain everything. I don't disagree with this...does anyone?

can't agree with any of that;
evolution is the testing of myriad chance alterations to a theme by the dynamic environment; most of which are failures. It is the huge time frame that renders this ridiculous, wasteful system fruitful. If it were 'designed' to be that way, it was designed by an idiot! And i see no reason to invent a suitable idiot, (in our image!) to blame.
There are no laws of physics; laws of thermodynamics; laws of 'nature'; these are just descriptions of what exhaustive experimentation, deduction, and observation has shown us to be the case.
Embroiled as we are in wanton competition with each other for territory, and all the other resources on this planet, we are preoccupied with legal jargon, and refer to them as "Laws" which they are not.
Laws are artefacts of governance, the universe simply operates as it does, and we merely observe;there is no universal government (or governor).

I don't state this to disagree; part of your text jlN, turns this way, just to emphasize!

And i 'sense' no 'ghost' in the machine!

stuh

Even a smattering of Wittgenstein should be sufficient to point out that your request for "definitions" is futile !

All we can hope to have is "language games" which "point to" particular positions.

stuh

...and "science" is also a "language game".

BoGoWo, while there may be no ghost in the machine. There may also be no machine. Maybe it's only ghost. My reference to Mind (upper case M) is not intended to do any more than suggest that a purely physicalist view of the Cosmos is not necessarily right or satisfactory. Matter, energy, and mind might be, in the end, interchangable, different terms for the same thing. If one counters with the argueable position that such a Mind is at present totally beyond both our comprehension and our investigatory reach, I would agree. But I would add that in terms of a philosophical/ontological framework the same applies to matter and energy, terms for essentially mysterious components of Reality.

Gel, I have yet to complete my scan of your long comparison between dualism and non-dualism, but so far it has reminded me of the observations that Abrahamic religions are uniformly dualistic--we are separate from God and there is an absolute distinction between Good and Bad (hypostatized in the forms of God and Satan, Heaven and Hell). The eastern religions, on the other hand (and the mystics of Christianity and Islam, i.e. Sufism) are fundamentally non-dualistic--we are one with the Cosmos and good and bad are aspects of each other. Like all dualisms, they exist as separate ideas but what they refer to do not exist as distinct phenomena.

this would be the scientific opinion.

unimpressed; as stated above, numerous criteria, had they been slightly different, would have altered this universe, but they didn't did they, because here we are a huddle of 'relatively' sentient, live, self aware, naked apes; tapping away like, crazed bongo drummers, in order to state our little twist on the nature of the universe and demonstrate that we are different from all the other apes. So this must BE the universe about which we are talking, not one of the infinite other 'possibilities'!
That there could be others is of no significance; we are discussing this one.

And as for 'intelligent' design, i think my disdain for such 'inventions' is well documented here.

quite so, we can only deal with what 'science' is currently known (even though i tend to ramble beyond the "police line, do not cross" occasionally); and much of what is not fully (or even slightly) understood today may tomorrow explain numerous 'impossibilities'.
however, having said that, i think it is prudent to deal only with the facts that we can be reasonably sure of, in fabricating theories, and describing relationships.
Because there might be more to the capacities of the brain/mind/consciousness, than meets the eye, does not justify assigning the whole complex assembly to the realm of the 'supernatural!

stuh505 wrote:



As fresco


Then I would think what you have read, or your understanding of it, is incomplete or wrong.

Excerpt:

"Advaita:
Encyclopædia Britannica Article

(Sanskrit: "Nondualism," or "Monism"), most influential of the schools of Vedanta, an orthodox philosophy of India. While its followers find its main tenets already fully expressed in the Upanisads and systematized by the Vedanta-sutras, it has its historical beginning with the 7th-century thinker Gaudapada, author of the Ma n d ukya-karika, a commentary in verse form on the late Ma n d ukya Upanisad.

Gaudapada builds further on the Mahayana Buddhist philosophy of S unyava-da ("Emptiness"). He argues that there is no duality; the mind, awake or dreaming, moves through maya ("illusion"); and only nonduality (advaita) is the final truth. This truth is concealed by the ignorance of illusion. There is no becoming, either of a thing by itself or of a thing out of some other thing. There is ultimately no individual self or soul (jiva), only the atman (all-soul), in which individuals may be temporarily delineated just as the space in a jar delineates a part of main space: when the jar is broken, the individual space becomes once more part of the main space."

http://www.nonduality.com/whatis9.htm


"Advaita Vedanta, or the Teaching of Nonduality, is that which is expounded by Ribhu, Sri Dattatreya (the Avadhuta), Sri Ashtavakra, Sri Sankara, Sri Ramana Maharshi, and many other great sages. It reveals the utter absence of any differentiation between Atman (the Self) and Brahman. It is the revelation of Reality without even a trace of notional superimpositions. The entire Ribhu Gita gives an exposition -- a veritable scripture -- of Advaita Vedanta."

Brief Explications--

Non duality is the _return or revival of Self_ gene poole

The 'Nondual' perspective does not _abolish_ "duality", it _resolves_ it instead.... gene poole

The nondual perspective is to me, the voluntary adoption of the attitude which allows surrender of personal identity. gene poole


Nonduality is the clear pool of awareness that remains once the 'white-water' of emotion (and emotional conflict) has ended. Melody Anderson

Defining nondualism is like adding legs to a snake. Dan Berkow

Nonduality can't be something that is used. It can't be employed at one time and not at another. Nonduality is what every moment of space-time-experience arises from and returns to. It is never absent from any moment of space-time-experience. It has no use, no value, from the usual perspectives of forming meaning and value. Dan Berkow

The very meaning of NonDualism is that God is not separate from creation, from All That Is but instead is identical with it. dave hodges

Nondualism: we're all the same. formerly shy

In the world of duality some entities are said to be "too good to be true." However, those who live in the nondualistic state of consciousness beyond "good and evil" are actually "too true to be 'good.'" karczewski

For me.... (nonduality) simply means.... being one with your duality. tg

nonduality=thoughtless reality. stan alari

Keep bumping into-I AM. This appears to be a limitation of the English language requiring a noun to put a verb in motion. Who is this I that I am? Non- duality would simply be: AM rusty

I have determined that nondualism is a point of view. It is one that I sometimes choose to see and sometimes not. It is not death and it is not nirvana. A point of view. All we need. And, on another hand, it is just a word. Slackeaux

Nonduality isn't about concepts; it is about getting rid of concepts, including a concept of absolute. Jan Barendrecht

nonduality could be called the journey to resolve the relation between you, the other sentient beings and the objects, for once and forever. Jan Barendrecht

In a nondual state there are no opposites. There is neither an awareness ofbeing passive nor an awareness of being active; awareness without content comes near. In a nondual state there is no contradiction or paradox; common language fails in its ability to describe events from a nondual perspective. The sense of "I am the doer" is permanently absent as is the sense of "I am not the doer"; what comes near is "things being done" as there is no "feeling" of I and there is no experiencer. Jan Barendrecht

From the nondual perspective there is nothing to seek and transformations will be secondary effects. From the perspective of "ego", only when seeking is forgotten one will recognize what was never lost; on gradual awakening transformations can be painful as one's focus seems to be shifting or at times seems to be absent. Jan Barendrecht

Considering the essence of Vedanta, the view that Atman is Brahman, in Western language this would boil down to: Nondualism is the view that immanence and transcendence are the same. Eventually with the explanation, "view" can become "fact", which is the nondual path. Jan Barendrecht

Nonduality as the common platform is the state where self is no more. This is what unites all methods, paths and the "self-styled". As a matter of fact, this is what (this) website is conveying already by its diversity. It is the idea of a bouquet of different flowers standing in one vase and sipping the same water. Jan Barendrecht

Etc. etc.

BoGoWo

while i realize, that i am 'god'; i'm having a little problem with my 'self image', and my ability to 'believe in myself"!

what "tootsie" needs is a proper 'role' model!

I can't talk now--on my way to the movies--but I do want to say that Tywvel's comment about the uselessness of dualism is brilliant and a "core" truth.
BoGoWo, I have never made any reference to supernaturalism. If there is anything that can serve as a reference for my Cosmic Mind, it is completely NATURAL, not supernatural.

Stuh, considering the descarte-based statement (yes you )I suggest reading 'I do therefor I am', it's a small topic with some nice thoughts on it. (There is cause therefor there is effect.)
'this is just absolutely ridiculous and nobody deserves to be taken seriously who brings up ideas like that. ' ...Perhaps presenting them in a manner you do not seem fit makes them hard for you to take seriously but the same can be said about your ideas (specifically, how you present them. I've noticed A2K is not particulary found of a 'closed mind')
'Especially since we have plenty examples of things which exist without creators...' Without a single entity which creates perhaps.

Gelisgesti: Are you listed somewhere on A2K as making the longest posts ever? Or can nobody(hehe) beat you?
And thanks, I needed a clear cut dualism explanation. I thought I got it, but this never hurts. Reading the arguments for dualism I just kept thinking: 'interrelating synapses people!'. And as for the bat, I find that all very interesting but I completely don't follow the train of thought considering the conclusion to support dualism with it. Simply because we cannot convey complex givens(eg. interrelating synapses) does not support the claim(if my first argument is accepted). But I thought I couldn't reply all this whereas I had to keep reading, seeing how you showed both sides of the case. Fortunately for me, your counter-arguments are contradictory (and pretty weak) to my personal view on it so far.
This is the first I've read about decision making coming out of nowhere, being a violation to the "Principle of the Conservation of Energy". My assessment was that 'for every action, there is an opposite(in total?) and equal reaction', therefor: Certain events have lead me to this moment, where I decide to cross the room. Everything has happened(physically) to ensure that my brain start interpreting reality, causing me to move. Nowhere, in my train of thought (perhaps I'm undereducated on the matter, but I simply don't see how things have to appear out of nowhere), there is no need for neurons to appear out of 'nowhere'. Strangely, this could be just me, your arguments against dualism seem to support it still...
Note: But I have heard of cosmic activities where there is a violation of the principle of the conservation of energy.

Bogowo: You save me a lot of typing.

Ray: Welcome, your input is greatly appreciated as you probably already noticed

twyvel: Your zen perception of things does cripple your ability to discuss. If you ever find an effective solution, let me know so I can join in
-Read between the lines. Understand what has been said by not paying attention to the words or concepts used. Intuitive understanding 'above' logic understanding-

edit:
Nobody: What movie? :p

1 - if one considers every possibility worthwhile of discussing, no discussion will ever get finished. do you not think there are LIMITS to how ridiculous a comment be for it to be taken seriously? I think I have a very open mind...there is nothing that I enjoy more in an argument than having someone point out logical flaws I have made...but I will not waste my time discussing things which are self contradictory or not based on logic.

twyvel,

you have found nearly as many definitions for nondualism as I did in the post you were replying to...although it looks like all your quotes come from forum dwellers rather than notable philosophers...anyway, you just proved my point because not all of your definitions were the same...thus proving that it does not have a well understood definition...which was my entire point.

Clearly .....
If it cannot be seen, smelled, tasted, heard, or touched, .... it does not exist.
Like 'thought', it just is not real.

Of course if thought were tangible ....

I'm not sure what exactly you're referring to...

anyway, you're wrong...if humans were born blind, tasteless, deaf, and callous would you say nothing exists? the senses we have are arbitrary. there are many forms of matter which we cannot detect with our senses. and even for the forms we CAN detect, there must be significant quantities.

also, existing is not just for matter...concepts can exist too.