2
   

Zen - "Not One", "Not Two"

 
 
Qaf
 
  2  
Reply Fri 28 Oct, 2016 04:47 am
@dalehileman,
Do you view dualism as thinking of things as polar opposites, dark/light etc, or either this or that ?

Are the semantics, the methods of a dualist arguement the problem rather than the precepts it talks about?

The "unicity" that non dualist seek can find similarities in God as the timeless, boundless, unity. The only problem arises when the notion of time is brought into play i.e God existed before us, (past, present) he created us (creator, created). If this dualism does exist? Is it possible to reconcile everything in a non dualist manner leaving aside God as the creator?
izzythepush
 
  0  
Reply Fri 28 Oct, 2016 07:57 am
@Qaf,
Despite all that you have to admit that sure rhymes with four,( dialectic variances aside.)

I'm not religious, to each his own.
0 Replies
 
fresco
 
  2  
Reply Fri 28 Oct, 2016 08:28 am
@Qaf,
Sorry, but I cannot commune with the logic of the need for 'a creator' because of the infinite regress problem (i.e. what created the creator ?). Pantheists might want to call the holistic unity of existence 'God', but taking a Nietzsche line, in which there appears to be no planning or purpose to existence (no directed 'will' other than that in the minds of humans) then the label 'God' is rendered useless or superfluous.
The key issue which all religions address is that of 'purpose or goal of existence' and the sub-issue ' personal existence'. Some religions go for 'dissipation of self' as in Buddhism for example, and some go for 'submission of self' as in monotheism. In contrast, Nietzsche advocated 'assertion of self' in line with his celebrated 'God is dead'. Of course, this begs the question of the meaning of 'existence' per se, and non-duality ( lack of 'oneness') suggests a relativistic stance on 'existence' rather than the absolutist one taken by theists.

Qaf
 
  2  
Reply Fri 28 Oct, 2016 10:15 am
@fresco,
I'm a theist but not a pedant. Thanks and deep appreciation for sharing with such clarity Fresco.

For me God is ultimately unknowable, if he wanted it to be otherwise it would be so. So my philosophical approach to meaningfulnessas (an intellectual exercise) as devoid of God.

I would like to understand where insight comes from, whether we consciously cultivate it, or more importantly what we need to do to cultivate a mode of being where something like truth i.e insight which immediate in the absence of thought is possible.
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Oct, 2016 11:36 am
@Qaf,
Quote:
Who's "her"
Him, Her, It, All. Qaf, sorta joke

Edited to acknowledge, thanks Fres
0 Replies
 
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Oct, 2016 11:47 am
@Qaf,
Quote:
dualism ,,,as polar opposites, dark/light etc....?
Nah Qaf, not necessarily

Quote:
Are the semantics... the problem rather than the precepts...?
Well put Qaf, yes, largely I guess

Quote:
problem arises ... time... i.e God existed before...
Yes indeed and that's why some of us maintain that She must have existed forever in one form or another

Quote:
Is it possible ... non dualist manner leaving aside God as the creator?
Qaf most certainly. Then what's left you can call God or not, or anything you like

Quote:
For me God is ultimately unknowable...
Sure very mysterious though eventully I think we'll get hints when our language finally permits
fresco
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Oct, 2016 01:00 pm
@Qaf,
You appear to be taking a Kantian line on 'insight' ( his transcendental unity of apperception). It is certainly the case that 'the observation of observation'..a phrase which might describe our understanding of 'nonduality'(etc).... is certainly suggested from a level other than the 'pure reason' which was the subject of Kant's critique. But that level, although 'transcendent' need not imply closure in the form of an absolutist entity which some might call 'God'. Such closure may be nothing more than psychological wish fulfilment...a safe cocoon to insulate the believer from 'the void'.

NB You might be interested in following up references to 'second order cybernetics' (the Systems Theory term for 'observation of observation') in which Bernard Scott ( a believer) goes for closure, whereas Von Foerster argues for the possibility of unbounded levels of transcendent rationality.
Qaf
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Oct, 2016 01:09 pm
@fresco,
Fresco wrote :
Quote:
But that level, although 'transcendent' need not imply closure in the form of an absolutist entity which some might call 'God'. Such closure may be nothing more than psychological wish fulfilment...a safe cocoon to insulate the believer from 'the void'.


URL: http://able2know.org/topic/350884-2


Thank you, that is truly insightful, seriously, thanks, I never considered thinking that way. I'm very far away from any equitable discourse with you Fresco, thank you for your time
0 Replies
 
Qaf
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Oct, 2016 01:12 pm
@dalehileman,
Dalehileman wrote:
Quote:
Re: Qaf (Post 6293388)
Quote:
dualism ,,,as polar opposites, dark/light etc....?
Nah Qaf, not necessarily


Before I go rushing to the nearest search engine or wait for it to come to me Smile pahlease tell me what you mean.

0 Replies
 
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Oct, 2016 01:17 pm
@Qaf,
Quote:
trying to develop a thought process which is non dualist
Being impressed by your intelligence and determination, the apodictical existential pantheist invites you to consider our position
Qaf
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Oct, 2016 03:08 pm
@dalehileman,
Many humble thanks, you all are great orators, I myself have just begun my journey.

I put up a thread "Bags Packed. Need Reading List", the only suggestion thus far has been The Bridges of Madison County Shocked Very Happy methinks this journey requiring lead underpants where I will hide books like The Bridges of Madison County, will be a long one.

Till then mon ami, I look forward to all your posts.
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Fri 28 Oct, 2016 04:52 pm
@Qaf,
Qaf they'll kid you a lot...
dalehileman
 
  1  
Reply Sat 29 Oct, 2016 10:52 am
@dalehileman,
Incidentally Qaf thanks for that profile, you're a rare bird
Fil Albuquerque
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Oct, 2016 05:05 am
@Qaf,
It means some ppl can't count...
0 Replies
 
Qaf
 
  1  
Reply Sun 30 Oct, 2016 07:53 am
@dalehileman,
Sir, you are very kind
0 Replies
 
dalehileman
 
  2  
Reply Sun 30 Oct, 2016 11:46 am
@Qaf,
Quote:
... dualism as thinking... polar opposites, dark/light etc...Are the semantics...the problem rather than the precepts...?
Qua that's really a good q I can't adequately answer, party to the anthro nature of our language and partly 'cause I'm not smart enough. For what it's worth however, I see I All (Her, the Universe, all Its actions) as a kind of necessary, permanent unity
0 Replies
 
 

 
Copyright © 2022 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 09/27/2022 at 01:45:45