@fckuvrymch When you say "almost any side of any argument is contradictory" it sounds like you are subscribing to a radical form of relativism. Such relativism proves false in application. Some arguments are overwhelmingly better than others at explaining and predicting events. There is a significant difference between science and superstition. Not all arguments are relatively equal.
Non-duality is a school of philosophy brought about by people who don't understand the flashlight in the fog, brought about by the limitations of language. It is a shadow of the real, after having become an object of fascination by those who defend it as a position, having failed to realise it is a shadow, and a position open to argument and attack by those equally failing to realise it has no real existence apart from being a pointer. Namaste.
ah, I'm glad you made the distinction, I beleive in embodied experientialism... which is non-dual, everything is material ultimately, but also non-simple, inherently complex (there is no bottom substance... but matter can be in many forms which can be transformed into others (rather than reduced).
iow, science offers a materialism as a non-duality. You are talking about it's use in non-emprical, metaphysical spirituality. The "all is illusion", nihilistic imo, version.
@pyrrho314 I wonder sometimes if you're doing exactly what you say you're opposed to. Saying that everything IS "energy" but then saying that it is inherently complex. If it is ultimately energy then that is the bottom substance. All subsets being aspects of the larger set. Not sure if you saw my last video but I'd be interested in your view if you get a chance. watch?v=8tEJPExy7lk
p.s. I'm still planning on experimenting with the time code tool. Haven't found anything to respond to yet.
@Barklord : no there is no bottom substance. I discovered, as a reductionist, there is no reduction, just transformation... at bottom all photons or particles are the "bottom things" and they can be transformed into other "basic things". Suskind on Stanford channel irrc, has an interesting lecture where he talks about the death of reductionism.
It's like in space, you reduce things down to cartesian, OR, radial coords, or... infinite "transformable bases".
@Barklord : no worries nor hurry, there are going to be other tools building toward an analytic conversation system... if you keep watching developments then you might see when something breaks some threshold of value.
Comment removed
fuaburisu 1 week ago
Comment removed
fuaburisu 1 week ago
almost any side of any argument is contradictory.
the only coherent position imo is nonduality.
what was there before there were names and concepts?
fckuvrymch 3 weeks ago
@fckuvrymch When you say "almost any side of any argument is contradictory" it sounds like you are subscribing to a radical form of relativism. Such relativism proves false in application. Some arguments are overwhelmingly better than others at explaining and predicting events. There is a significant difference between science and superstition. Not all arguments are relatively equal.
michaelwbennett 3 weeks ago
Non-duality is bad... mmmm K???
spceman 5 months ago
Non-duality is a school of philosophy brought about by people who don't understand the flashlight in the fog, brought about by the limitations of language. It is a shadow of the real, after having become an object of fascination by those who defend it as a position, having failed to realise it is a shadow, and a position open to argument and attack by those equally failing to realise it has no real existence apart from being a pointer. Namaste.
Arashau 6 months ago
".. the meaning of emptiness is that the realm where nothing exists, or cannot be known, is seen as empty.
Of course, emptiness does not exist. Knowing of nonexistence while knowing of existence is emptiness.
Wrongly viewed among people of the world, not understanding anything is itself considered emptiness. This is not real emptiness it is all delusion."
Miyamoto Musashi
Have you thought about the yin-yang how it is meant to represent non-duality? Very beautiful concepts to explore.
GoldenFinchFellow 6 months ago
i think i maybe share some of your concerns with certain people, particularly some of the more modern 'teachers' of it... like Tony Parsons
but mostly, you're confused.
TWITfromURANUS 6 months ago
ah, I'm glad you made the distinction, I beleive in embodied experientialism... which is non-dual, everything is material ultimately, but also non-simple, inherently complex (there is no bottom substance... but matter can be in many forms which can be transformed into others (rather than reduced).
iow, science offers a materialism as a non-duality. You are talking about it's use in non-emprical, metaphysical spirituality. The "all is illusion", nihilistic imo, version.
pyrrho314 6 months ago
@pyrrho314 ??
pyrrho314 6 months ago
@pyrrho314 I wonder sometimes if you're doing exactly what you say you're opposed to. Saying that everything IS "energy" but then saying that it is inherently complex. If it is ultimately energy then that is the bottom substance. All subsets being aspects of the larger set. Not sure if you saw my last video but I'd be interested in your view if you get a chance. watch?v=8tEJPExy7lk
p.s. I'm still planning on experimenting with the time code tool. Haven't found anything to respond to yet.
Barklord 6 months ago
@Barklord : no there is no bottom substance. I discovered, as a reductionist, there is no reduction, just transformation... at bottom all photons or particles are the "bottom things" and they can be transformed into other "basic things". Suskind on Stanford channel irrc, has an interesting lecture where he talks about the death of reductionism.
It's like in space, you reduce things down to cartesian, OR, radial coords, or... infinite "transformable bases".
pyrrho314 6 months ago
@Barklord : no worries nor hurry, there are going to be other tools building toward an analytic conversation system... if you keep watching developments then you might see when something breaks some threshold of value.
cheers.
pyrrho314 6 months ago
non duality = paradox = cannot be explained by a individual seperate michael
KarameloKaramelo 6 months ago