AND...
...what happened to the "better understanding of the world?"
I am not sure I catch your drift...
Frank wrote:AND...
...what happened to the "better understanding of the world?"
It is wordless. You cannot explain what a river is without resorting to dualistic interpretations of percieved aspects. And every aspect requires the basis of another one to make sense. But only when you can unify concepts in your mind do you truly understand what a river is.
Very often this process is so simple that we're not aware of doing it.
Cyracuz,
Have a look at Stanley Sobottka.
http://faculty.virginia.edu/consciousness/
He is is a physicist who discusses "reality" with respect to nonduality. He offers an alternative to "social consensus" in terms of a "holistic nonlocal consciousness".
Cyracuz wrote:I am not sure I catch your drift...
Frank wrote:AND...
...what happened to the "better understanding of the world?"
It is wordless. You cannot explain what a river is without resorting to dualistic interpretations of percieved aspects. And every aspect requires the basis of another one to make sense. But only when you can unify concepts in your mind do you truly understand what a river is.
Very often this process is so simple that we're not aware of doing it.
You are just playing with words.
Go back and read the last three exchanges...and then come back to this question.
Or do I really have to go through the ordeal of picking out the appropriate sentences again and putting them into a separate posting?????
Fresco
Thanks for the link. I took a quick peek and bookmarked the site. Looks interesting. I'll have to examine it closer tomorrow though. My brain is cooked from several hours in front of the screen. Time for bed.
Good night y'all.
Frank
I'll have to get back to you. It's the middle of the night here in my timezone.
Thanks for the exchange so far. Good night.
You folks have gone way ahead of me, by about six pages. Let me just suggest that dualism and non-dualism are PRACTICES supported by implicit beliefs. This needs explanation. The subject-object structure built into our grammar is not something people advance as a belief. They have simply internalized it and speak and write as if the world consisted of egos or agents and their environments and actions. Similarly, we all think and talk dualistically, as if our polar contrasts, e.g., up-down, bright-dark, light-heavy, good-bad, near-distant, beautiful-ugly, rich-poor, etc. etc. were absolutes. Actually, the world consists of objects, qualities and events that fit somewhere in between (like shades of gray between the poles of black and white) these conceptual distinctions. Also, the poles themselves are defined in terms of, or with reference to, their complimentary contrasts. The most famous example of this are the two "sides" of the yin-yang symbol. Each has its shape and very existence with reference to the shape of the other. They are a unity, a relationship.
JLNobody wrote:You folks have gone way ahead of me, by about six pages. Let me just suggest that dualism and non-dualism are PRACTICES supported by implicit beliefs. This needs explanation. The subject-object structure built into our grammar is not something people advance as a belief. They have simply internalized it and speak and write as if the world consisted of egos or agents and their environments and actions. Similarly, we all think and talk dualistically, as if our polar contrasts, e.g., up-down, bright-dark, light-heavy, good-bad, near-distant, beautiful-ugly, rich-poor, etc. etc. were absolutes. Actually, the world consists of objects, qualities and events that fit somewhere in between (like shades of gray between the poles of black and white) these conceptual distinctions. Also, the poles themselves are defined in terms of, or with reference to, their complimentary contrasts. The most famous example of this are the two "sides" of the yin-yang symbol. Each has its shape and very existence with reference to the shape of the other. They are a unity, a relationship.
What is your point?
This talk reminds me of Christians talking about prosciptions against killing and stealing, for instance. Do we need a god to tell us that society functions better if those things are outlawed?
I easily realize that hot means nothing without cold...or up without down.
But what is your point?
By the way...there is a hell of a lot more belief in your belief system than grammatical conventions.
Oh, I was just suggesting that dualism and nondualism are not ideologies or conscious belief systems, as much as they are behavioral practices, guided unconsciously by tacit or implicit "rules" much like the rules of grammar which we follow in our speech practice but without endorsing them ideologically (I think of ideologies or belief systems as, in part, consciously held understandings).
Nietzsche referred to grammar in the sense that I referred to it (remember the subject-object dualism?) as the metaphysics of the masses, as a "system" of out-of-awareness understandings.
How do you know that the presumption of qualai are not simply our sense organs triggering responses in the brain, and are not in fact discrete aspects of knowledge separate from might be learned otherwise?
Chumly,
....at that point you need to look at the word "know".... :wink:
JLN,
Re "objects" heres a bit of Sobottka suggested to Cyracuz above,
Quote:4. What are polar, or dual, pairs of concepts?
a. Conceptualization always results in inseparable pairs of concepts (polar, or dual, pairs) because every concept has an opposite.
b. Reality is apparently split into polar (dual) pairs by conceptualization. However, no concept is real since Reality cannot be split.
c. The result of apparently splitting Reality into polar pairs of concepts is called duality.
d. The two concepts of a pair are always inseparable because the merger of the opposites will cancel the pair.
e. Example: "I"/not-"I" is a polar pair of concepts. If the "I" and not-"I" merge, neither concept remains.
7. What is existence?
Sobottka goes on to define "God" as "Awareness" or "consciousness without locality". It is synonymous with "awareness within self transcendence" (that of the sage).
Quote:God is another word for Consciousness, which is what You are.
Frank Apisa wrote:DrewDad wrote:Reposting:
DrewDad wrote:Frank Apisa wrote:DrewDad wrote:How would a word's definition in 1950 affect a debate in 2007?
One of the points I made, Jackass...was that the changes were recent!
Try to wrap your mind around that thought.
And my point is that even if the changes are recent, it makes no difference to a debate happening today.
Your "open mind" is refusing to accept an updated concept.
My open-mindedness deals with comments about why this so-called updated concept is in existence.
In my opinion, the only reason atheists who claim their atheism ends with a lack of belief in gods...is because of the advantage such a position gives them in debate on the issue...not because it is the case.
In fact, I don't think it actually is the case is almost any of the instance where I've dealt with atheists asserting such a stance. The posts they make indicate that their atheism extends much further...to denial of gods.
But the "debate advantages" are: If they do not assert there are no gods...they are relieved in debate of having to substantiate such a pro-active assertion....and if they do not assert a belief there are no gods, they are relieved in debate of having to acknowledge that atheism is nothing more than a belief system...just like theism, except in another direction.
That is not close-mindedness. And I am not close-minded.
So, you close down debate by defining a term the way you choose to define it (close minnded), and by asserting that others don't really believe what they state that they believe and then attacking the position you claim they hold (strawman).
No doubt I shall be called jackass, moron, or worse, but you can't hide from your own words.
DrewDad wrote:Frank Apisa wrote:DrewDad wrote:Reposting:
DrewDad wrote:Frank Apisa wrote:DrewDad wrote:How would a word's definition in 1950 affect a debate in 2007?
One of the points I made, Jackass...was that the changes were recent!
Try to wrap your mind around that thought.
And my point is that even if the changes are recent, it makes no difference to a debate happening today.
Your "open mind" is refusing to accept an updated concept.
My open-mindedness deals with comments about why this so-called updated concept is in existence.
In my opinion, the only reason atheists who claim their atheism ends with a lack of belief in gods...is because of the advantage such a position gives them in debate on the issue...not because it is the case.
In fact, I don't think it actually is the case is almost any of the instance where I've dealt with atheists asserting such a stance. The posts they make indicate that their atheism extends much further...to denial of gods.
But the "debate advantages" are: If they do not assert there are no gods...they are relieved in debate of having to substantiate such a pro-active assertion....and if they do not assert a belief there are no gods, they are relieved in debate of having to acknowledge that atheism is nothing more than a belief system...just like theism, except in another direction.
That is not close-mindedness. And I am not close-minded.
So, you close down debate by defining a term the way you choose to define it (close minnded), and by asserting that others don't really believe what they state that they believe and then attacking the position you claim they hold (strawman).
Ahhh...I see. By your standard, I must accept your characterization that I am close minded (THE MOST close minded individual in this forum) or I am being close minded. And if I enumerate reasons for why I suggest I am taking a particular postion...I am being, in your opinion, close minded.
Interesting reasoning!
Quote:
No doubt I shall be called jackass, moron, or worse, but you can't hide from your own words.
I have no intention of hiding from my words...and I doubt I've ever given reason for anyone who is not a jackass, moron, or worse to think I would.
Denial of gods - and agnosticism - is the only reasonable conclusion anyway. They all couch their words in ways to denigrate atheists and dance around the situation, but in the end, it's all words and wishful thinking on their part.
Fresco wrote:
Quote: Sobottka goes on to define "God" as "Awareness" or "consciousness without locality". It is synonymous with "awareness within self transcendence" (that of the sage).
And I suppose in the non-dualist's mind
that is not a belief!!!!
Quote:a) Conceptualization always results in inseparable pairs of concepts (polar, or dual, pairs) because every concept has an opposite.
Not that I buy any of this "what is the sound of one hand clapping" nonsense
I would like to make an honest attempt to understand what is being proposed here:
What is the concept opposite to the one cited above?
Frank Apisa: "I'm not close minded, but atheism means what I say it means."
Simon Cowell: "Not being rude, but will you shut up?"
Frank Apisa wrote: I have no intention of hiding from my words...and I doubt I've ever given reason for anyone who is not a jackass, moron, or worse to think I would.
This almost managed to be clever.
Frank Apisa wrote:Bite me, Moron!
This, sadly, is more your style....
DrewDad wrote:Frank Apisa wrote: I have no intention of hiding from my words...and I doubt I've ever given reason for anyone who is not a jackass, moron, or worse to think I would.
This almost managed to be clever.
Frank Apisa wrote:Bite me, Moron!
This, sadly, is more your style....
So far...all you've done is snipe....right from your very first post.
If you have something to say on the issue being discussed...say it.
If not...why don't you back to playing with the other kids.
I'm late to this thread but if atheists are so much smarter than religious folk then why don't the atheists have their own broadcast networks, books, tapes, why aren't they selling atheist icons, why aren't they fleecing the public out of their hard earned money right out in the open, getting away with it, and even getting tax exempt status to do it? Hmmmm?
