What it is! Great video! I think its a form of Indian religion that has been going around and changing itself since the 60s. People don't have time to become physicists so they read the Tao of Physics which is suppose to answer all of their questions. What motivates people allowing themselves to be infected by this self-replicating meme is the promise that all of their questions get answered and that we be immortal in the eternal here and now; we are the world; and, matter IS consciousness(!).
Non duality isn't about wanting things to be the same, nature is filled with opposites and differences without our input. It's about seeing that behind 'you' there is a perciever that, without all the barriers, could percieve all differences in the same light. Sort of like, we can all see the different colours in a painting, but for the sake of progressive communication, we should all atleast take off individual shades of rose tinted specs which we have bcome attatched to.
first I want to say basically I have a non-dualist perspective, this is mostly language we are talking about. The thing is I think "oneness" the term, carries a frame that ignores difference. Usually there is some celebration of difference. My philosophy says there is no oneness per se except, just connections.
How in your philosophy do you combine a "basically non-dualist perpective" with the observation that "there is no oneness per se except connections?" I'm curious.
well, for example, oneness and difference appear dual, contradictions, but they are just two perspectives on one thing, connection. You can emphasize, about a connection, the distance, or you can emphasize the proximity, but it's still one connection, and the emphasis is just what you are talking about at the moment, not the fundamental character of the relationship which has many details.
Oneness is an abstraction, my body is "one" because it has more internal connections with its own parts.
ah, I'll watch the video (I actually havn't watched it yet, usually I watch them once before I upload), I might have spoken loosely... but still, in concepts, a difference is a separation between two ideas, using a spatial metaphor for ideas. I use a spatial metaphor for ideas a lot, i.e. two ideas that are similar are "nearby".
I think that objectivity is compatible with different frameworks of categorization. For example a forest is not THE whole and a tree is not THE part. Whether they are wholes or parts depends on the focus. A tree can be a whole while it's fruit can be a part. But a tree then can become a part in relation to a forest, and so on. This doesn't mean there aren't any trees or forests. It just means that there aren't any "trees" or "forests."
i undestand the sentiment. but its in orther to make people think. we are naturally broken into this dual state of seperation. and people seek purpose. doubt their value. most often then not fall victim of the subjective, at best join some group think. have trouble overcoming their "frameness". it is an attempt at ultimate frame without refuting reality as it frames its realisation.
as for "oneness". we really do not know what material universe is made up from. fields are just concepts of form. and perhaps you misspoke but energy is transfer, it's merely the potentiality of becoming and becoming. as we do not know what the substance is we are left with describing its form: an energy. that's what i find most annoying about "newagers": their total failure in this department and using the term energy for some substance, when it's merely an equation!
it's like perspective on perspective, reflecting on it and examining it closely, i wonder if it necessary to come to an actual conclusion about it. thinking about these subjects is mental conditioning for some purpose, else, why do some people think like this and others do not? ★ good vids pyrrho! ★
thanks, and I like this point a lot, sometimes we think things for mental conditioning, not to solve them. Since I don't think we every solve anything for good (just "good enough for now") in a way ALL thinking is just this sort of conditioning.
It just seems like at one point in the video your comparing oneness and differentiation as though one concept can be better and to me it seems that like with what came up before, whether we're all made of the same stuff or not, it's a sense of things that we're talking about. So the value is only there once you have an observer. Oneness (sameness) or distinction as states of being have no value in and of themselves. We give them value.
You and Matt want to know reality, but as you stated in this video, each thing has it's other. As long as there is knowledge there will be ignorance, so trying to know everything will never work. There is another way, be what you want to know. When the questioner disappears, thats when the questions disappear.
You lost me in the last part, but I want to clarify that I want to know more, I want to learn more, but I do not believe there is an end to learning, I believe that questions will go on forever, no answer is final, and even though we can have progress, even that is arbitrary, measured by some criteria we choose, and later, one thing we learn, is to start with improved criteria.
Why is it that we do not consider ourselves to be reality itself? If we knew this, there would be a lot less violence in the world. War would be like your two arms fighting. Some things you can only know from direct experience, who you are is one of them.
I do consider that, you can see my definition of what it means to exist. To "exist" in my system is a name for out experience of perceiving... we define existence, for ourselves, but I don't understand how peace follows. Tell me more if you think there is more to tell.
Consider this possibility: Everything that exists, that you do not know, is producing what you do know. If this was true, you could never say what you were, you could only be what you were. As for peace, that is the original state, not something that follows. There is even stillness is a turbulent world when you move with it.
If you say there *is* "one thing", then "things" are just concepts. If you say there is *not* one thing, then reality is just a concept. Heraclitus, who you mentioned, argued there were no things, just the Heraclitan Flux - conveniently named after himself :-;
I think your idea about sharing conceptual frames is similar to what I was saying about reality being bodies within bodies within bodies. Bodies = conceptual frames. no final, objective, ultimate frame exists, just a continual seeking after new ways of relating, new ways of embodying.
I'll post a video response tomorrow. If only there wasn't a difference between night and day, I wouldn't feel so tired.
yes, bodies within bodies is the same thing... self identification as part of a body/group is the subjective adoption of a frame of reference, and these are always "shared" because even in our case, we are, of course, composed of many many individuable cellular bodies.
Which comes first: difference or identity (non-duality), chicken or egg?
I have no idea.
I think the non-duality stuff has something to do with how time is experienced, which seems important.
Difference applies to space quite nicely, but when applied to time it makes a mess. The difference is between what we are and who we are. Differences tell us what something is, identities tell us who.
"Everyone who enjoys thinks that the principal thing to the tree is the fruit, but in point of fact the principal thing to it is the seed. -- Herein lies the difference between them that create and them that enjoy." - Nietzsche
the egg comes first, because chickens evolved from reptiles, and reptiles laid eggs before they were chickens, so the chicken emerged from an egg already there.
difference and similarity, or indivualism and identity, emerge simultaneously. I do believe these dichotomies are about the same thing, just from a complimentary frame of reference. The difference between them is where you are looking at them from.
im interested to know what u mean about energy transfers. Cause i am currently in the belief that all things do break down to energy, and i dont know any arguement against it, til u mention this energy transfer. Like coal to electricity? steam into work?
if everything is energy... fine, that seems true except that's really saying the only "substance" is energy, there is still in addition to that the ability for energy to move around, so there is also space, there are the fields where potential energy is stored, temporarily, and there are the characteristics of energy, such as frequency and amount. There are still multiple things, you can't actually make everything just one thing it seems to me. Maybe it's a limit of the brain but...
What it is! Great video! I think its a form of Indian religion that has been going around and changing itself since the 60s. People don't have time to become physicists so they read the Tao of Physics which is suppose to answer all of their questions. What motivates people allowing themselves to be infected by this self-replicating meme is the promise that all of their questions get answered and that we be immortal in the eternal here and now; we are the world; and, matter IS consciousness(!).
paradirob 3 years ago
Non duality isn't about wanting things to be the same, nature is filled with opposites and differences without our input. It's about seeing that behind 'you' there is a perciever that, without all the barriers, could percieve all differences in the same light. Sort of like, we can all see the different colours in a painting, but for the sake of progressive communication, we should all atleast take off individual shades of rose tinted specs which we have bcome attatched to.
ashkanrabbit 3 years ago
I'm happy to see so many interesting videos on YouTube, including yours!
As far as your view on nonduality, I'd like to point out that true nondual philosophies do not deny or degrade difference.
I think that their focus on oneness is meant as a counterbalance to the natural human perception of an individual "self" which is not entirely real.
frozenparrot 4 years ago
first I want to say basically I have a non-dualist perspective, this is mostly language we are talking about. The thing is I think "oneness" the term, carries a frame that ignores difference. Usually there is some celebration of difference. My philosophy says there is no oneness per se except, just connections.
pyrrho314 4 years ago
How in your philosophy do you combine a "basically non-dualist perpective" with the observation that "there is no oneness per se except connections?" I'm curious.
frozenparrot 4 years ago
well, for example, oneness and difference appear dual, contradictions, but they are just two perspectives on one thing, connection. You can emphasize, about a connection, the distance, or you can emphasize the proximity, but it's still one connection, and the emphasis is just what you are talking about at the moment, not the fundamental character of the relationship which has many details.
Oneness is an abstraction, my body is "one" because it has more internal connections with its own parts.
pyrrho314 4 years ago
difference is not separation though. Difference is different than separation.
cosmanthony21 4 years ago
ah, I'll watch the video (I actually havn't watched it yet, usually I watch them once before I upload), I might have spoken loosely... but still, in concepts, a difference is a separation between two ideas, using a spatial metaphor for ideas. I use a spatial metaphor for ideas a lot, i.e. two ideas that are similar are "nearby".
pyrrho314 4 years ago
I think that objectivity is compatible with different frameworks of categorization. For example a forest is not THE whole and a tree is not THE part. Whether they are wholes or parts depends on the focus. A tree can be a whole while it's fruit can be a part. But a tree then can become a part in relation to a forest, and so on. This doesn't mean there aren't any trees or forests. It just means that there aren't any "trees" or "forests."
EpistemicDuty 4 years ago
that all makes sense to me.
pyrrho314 4 years ago
i undestand the sentiment. but its in orther to make people think. we are naturally broken into this dual state of seperation. and people seek purpose. doubt their value. most often then not fall victim of the subjective, at best join some group think. have trouble overcoming their "frameness". it is an attempt at ultimate frame without refuting reality as it frames its realisation.
jogayot 4 years ago
as for "oneness". we really do not know what material universe is made up from. fields are just concepts of form. and perhaps you misspoke but energy is transfer, it's merely the potentiality of becoming and becoming. as we do not know what the substance is we are left with describing its form: an energy. that's what i find most annoying about "newagers": their total failure in this department and using the term energy for some substance, when it's merely an equation!
jogayot 4 years ago
orther? wtf ;?) order... some freudian slip. hah.
jogayot 4 years ago
I accept the idea that the energy IS the transfer, but what is "potential energy"? That is, when it's not being transfered?
pyrrho314 4 years ago
it's like perspective on perspective, reflecting on it and examining it closely, i wonder if it necessary to come to an actual conclusion about it. thinking about these subjects is mental conditioning for some purpose, else, why do some people think like this and others do not? ★ good vids pyrrho! ★
matrixcmitech 4 years ago
thanks, and I like this point a lot, sometimes we think things for mental conditioning, not to solve them. Since I don't think we every solve anything for good (just "good enough for now") in a way ALL thinking is just this sort of conditioning.
pyrrho314 4 years ago
Do you really think differentness and sameness have inherent value? That seems a bit weird.
CitizenWorm 4 years ago
what do you mean? both concepts have value as tools but what do you mean by "inherent"?
pyrrho314 4 years ago
It just seems like at one point in the video your comparing oneness and differentiation as though one concept can be better and to me it seems that like with what came up before, whether we're all made of the same stuff or not, it's a sense of things that we're talking about. So the value is only there once you have an observer. Oneness (sameness) or distinction as states of being have no value in and of themselves. We give them value.
Maybe I'm still not explaining this well.
CitizenWorm 4 years ago
no, I get it now.
pyrrho314 4 years ago
You and Matt want to know reality, but as you stated in this video, each thing has it's other. As long as there is knowledge there will be ignorance, so trying to know everything will never work. There is another way, be what you want to know. When the questioner disappears, thats when the questions disappear.
jallopyclown 4 years ago
You lost me in the last part, but I want to clarify that I want to know more, I want to learn more, but I do not believe there is an end to learning, I believe that questions will go on forever, no answer is final, and even though we can have progress, even that is arbitrary, measured by some criteria we choose, and later, one thing we learn, is to start with improved criteria.
pyrrho314 4 years ago
Why is it that we do not consider ourselves to be reality itself? If we knew this, there would be a lot less violence in the world. War would be like your two arms fighting. Some things you can only know from direct experience, who you are is one of them.
jallopyclown 4 years ago
I do consider that, you can see my definition of what it means to exist. To "exist" in my system is a name for out experience of perceiving... we define existence, for ourselves, but I don't understand how peace follows. Tell me more if you think there is more to tell.
pyrrho314 4 years ago
Consider this possibility: Everything that exists, that you do not know, is producing what you do know. If this was true, you could never say what you were, you could only be what you were. As for peace, that is the original state, not something that follows. There is even stillness is a turbulent world when you move with it.
jallopyclown 4 years ago
If you say there *is* "one thing", then "things" are just concepts. If you say there is *not* one thing, then reality is just a concept. Heraclitus, who you mentioned, argued there were no things, just the Heraclitan Flux - conveniently named after himself :-;
jallopyclown 4 years ago
I think your idea about sharing conceptual frames is similar to what I was saying about reality being bodies within bodies within bodies. Bodies = conceptual frames. no final, objective, ultimate frame exists, just a continual seeking after new ways of relating, new ways of embodying.
I'll post a video response tomorrow. If only there wasn't a difference between night and day, I wouldn't feel so tired.
0ThouArtThat0 4 years ago
yes, bodies within bodies is the same thing... self identification as part of a body/group is the subjective adoption of a frame of reference, and these are always "shared" because even in our case, we are, of course, composed of many many individuable cellular bodies.
pyrrho314 4 years ago
Monism weirds me out for some reason, too. I'm not a pantheist. I think non-duality is just what you said, that opposites coincide.
0ThouArtThat0 4 years ago
Which comes first: difference or identity (non-duality), chicken or egg?
I have no idea.
I think the non-duality stuff has something to do with how time is experienced, which seems important.
Difference applies to space quite nicely, but when applied to time it makes a mess. The difference is between what we are and who we are. Differences tell us what something is, identities tell us who.
0ThouArtThat0 4 years ago
"Everyone who enjoys thinks that the principal thing to the tree is the fruit, but in point of fact the principal thing to it is the seed. -- Herein lies the difference between them that create and them that enjoy." - Nietzsche
0ThouArtThat0 4 years ago
great quote
pyrrho314 4 years ago
the egg comes first, because chickens evolved from reptiles, and reptiles laid eggs before they were chickens, so the chicken emerged from an egg already there.
difference and similarity, or indivualism and identity, emerge simultaneously. I do believe these dichotomies are about the same thing, just from a complimentary frame of reference. The difference between them is where you are looking at them from.
pyrrho314 4 years ago
im interested to know what u mean about energy transfers. Cause i am currently in the belief that all things do break down to energy, and i dont know any arguement against it, til u mention this energy transfer. Like coal to electricity? steam into work?
cozmikzen 4 years ago
if everything is energy... fine, that seems true except that's really saying the only "substance" is energy, there is still in addition to that the ability for energy to move around, so there is also space, there are the fields where potential energy is stored, temporarily, and there are the characteristics of energy, such as frequency and amount. There are still multiple things, you can't actually make everything just one thing it seems to me. Maybe it's a limit of the brain but...
pyrrho314 4 years ago