|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jul 5, 2023 15:57:27 GMT
To argue that there is a multiplicity of things is to first paradoxically require that this multiplicity is connected through the act of distinguishing a thing as a thing. The fact that there are things necessitates these things are connected under the phenomenon of 'being a thing'.
|
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Jul 8, 2023 15:57:38 GMT
To argue that there is a multiplicity of things is to first paradoxically require that this multiplicity is connected through the act of distinguishing a thing as a thing. The fact that there are things necessitates these things are connected under the phenomenon of 'being a thing'. o yes there iz
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jul 9, 2023 15:36:28 GMT
Imagine absolutely any certain thing (or even group of things) being presented somehow in the existence. If this thing (these things) is (are) what it (they) is (are), then it is the very fact for this thing (these things) to be what it (they) is (are). Otherwise, we cannot even claim it. So, at least on the plainest level such concept as dualism is presented.
Okay, let's imagine the more harder case, when we're dealing with such a situation that there is no correlation of our (anyone in general) thoughts of a thing, and even the identity (or the equivalence) is out of this case, which means that for any thing ('things' respectively) it is possible to not be what it is. What's next? - It's simple: such thing (or whatever it is) should be out of that identity or equivalence, therefore - at least there is some duality. Of course, it doesn't mean that there is exactly a duality, but if N (a certain number) of that multiplicity is >1, then there must be a dualism.
Moreover, let's claim (without using previous start thought) that there is no duality/dualism. What does it mean? - This mean that there is something what it is. But!! How are we supposed to know that that 'something' (that is not dualism) is not dualism? - In which way? - All we have to say that there must be something else, that is not that something. So, unless there must be something else except for that previous (non-dualistic) something. And even any of our attempts to say something like: oh, there is no duality (multiplicity), so it is impossible to even think of it - then the next question automatically raises in our heads: then what must make us think that that 'non-dualism' (monism) is what it is? For example, why 'monism' is 'monism', and not something like 'tripleism'? If we don't even have anything to compare we cannot say absolutely anything without an ability to utter any thoughts.
To measure is the simplest mathematical operation, and personally I'm sure that this isn't something unusual, because if we compare even one thing, we do it to itself (this thing again). So, the simplest mathematical conceptualization requires us to use a single element being compare to itself. By the way, the same in logic - in that kind of operation of identity that is called sometimes as 'irrational identity' (or kinda?), i.e. 'x=x', where 'x' can be absolutely anything, even irrational things as Pi, or square root of minus numbers, sofas, suns, molecules, galaxies, scissors, shadows, glue, etc.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jul 10, 2023 11:15:39 GMT
Also must add that even the attempt to think complete monism is also great. Plato tried to do it, but can't say I believe him too much. I don't know about Socrates, I wonder what he, not Plato, thought about that.
It's not impossible Plato and Aristotle as rich coddles just stole Socrates' thoughts. And interesting that Aristophanes the disciple of Socrates believed only in x=x and that's it. He said no chances to say anything above that x=x.
|
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jul 14, 2023 20:34:55 GMT
Imagine absolutely any certain thing (or even group of things) being presented somehow in the existence. If this thing (these things) is (are) what it (they) is (are), then it is the very fact for this thing (these things) to be what it (they) is (are). Otherwise, we cannot even claim it. So, at least on the plainest level such concept as dualism is presented. Okay, let's imagine the more harder case, when we're dealing with such a situation that there is no correlation of our (anyone in general) thoughts of a thing, and even the identity (or the equivalence) is out of this case, which means that for any thing ('things' respectively) it is possible to not be what it is. What's next? - It's simple: such thing (or whatever it is) should be out of that identity or equivalence, therefore - at least there is some duality. Of course, it doesn't mean that there is exactly a duality, but if N (a certain number) of that multiplicity is >1, then there must be a dualism. Moreover, let's claim (without using previous start thought) that there is no duality/dualism. What does it mean? - This mean that there is something what it is. But!! How are we supposed to know that that 'something' (that is not dualism) is not dualism? - In which way? - All we have to say that there must be something else, that is not that something. So, unless there must be something else except for that previous (non-dualistic) something. And even any of our attempts to say something like: oh, there is no duality (multiplicity), so it is impossible to even think of it - then the next question automatically raises in our heads: then what must make us think that that 'non-dualism' (monism) is what it is? For example, why 'monism' is 'monism', and not something like 'tripleism'? If we don't even have anything to compare we cannot say absolutely anything without an ability to utter any thoughts. To measure is the simplest mathematical operation, and personally I'm sure that this isn't something unusual, because if we compare even one thing, we do it to itself (this thing again). So, the simplest mathematical conceptualization requires us to use a single element being compare to itself. By the way, the same in logic - in that kind of operation of identity that is called sometimes as 'irrational identity' (or kinda?), i.e. 'x=x', where 'x' can be absolutely anything, even irrational things as Pi, or square root of minus numbers, sofas, suns, molecules, galaxies, scissors, shadows, glue, etc. Your point applies to this thread: "There is No Non-dualism" arktos.boards.net/thread/8971/nondualismTaking both threads it mind it may be stated that there is neither dualism nor non-dualism...."reality just is". |
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Jul 14, 2023 21:31:13 GMT
Imagine absolutely any certain thing (or even group of things) being presented somehow in the existence. If this thing (these things) is (are) what it (they) is (are), then it is the very fact for this thing (these things) to be what it (they) is (are). Otherwise, we cannot even claim it. So, at least on the plainest level such concept as dualism is presented. Okay, let's imagine the more harder case, when we're dealing with such a situation that there is no correlation of our (anyone in general) thoughts of a thing, and even the identity (or the equivalence) is out of this case, which means that for any thing ('things' respectively) it is possible to not be what it is. What's next? - It's simple: such thing (or whatever it is) should be out of that identity or equivalence, therefore - at least there is some duality. Of course, it doesn't mean that there is exactly a duality, but if N (a certain number) of that multiplicity is >1, then there must be a dualism. Moreover, let's claim (without using previous start thought) that there is no duality/dualism. What does it mean? - This mean that there is something what it is. But!! How are we supposed to know that that 'something' (that is not dualism) is not dualism? - In which way? - All we have to say that there must be something else, that is not that something. So, unless there must be something else except for that previous (non-dualistic) something. And even any of our attempts to say something like: oh, there is no duality (multiplicity), so it is impossible to even think of it - then the next question automatically raises in our heads: then what must make us think that that 'non-dualism' (monism) is what it is? For example, why 'monism' is 'monism', and not something like 'tripleism'? If we don't even have anything to compare we cannot say absolutely anything without an ability to utter any thoughts. To measure is the simplest mathematical operation, and personally I'm sure that this isn't something unusual, because if we compare even one thing, we do it to itself (this thing again). So, the simplest mathematical conceptualization requires us to use a single element being compare to itself. By the way, the same in logic - in that kind of operation of identity that is called sometimes as 'irrational identity' (or kinda?), i.e. 'x=x', where 'x' can be absolutely anything, even irrational things as Pi, or square root of minus numbers, sofas, suns, molecules, galaxies, scissors, shadows, glue, etc. Your point applies to this thread: "There is No Non-dualism" arktos.boards.net/thread/8971/nondualismTaking both threads it mind it may be stated that there is neither dualism nor non-dualism...."reality just is". nah |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jul 15, 2023 10:28:42 GMT
Imagine absolutely any certain thing (or even group of things) being presented somehow in the existence. If this thing (these things) is (are) what it (they) is (are), then it is the very fact for this thing (these things) to be what it (they) is (are). Otherwise, we cannot even claim it. So, at least on the plainest level such concept as dualism is presented. Okay, let's imagine the more harder case, when we're dealing with such a situation that there is no correlation of our (anyone in general) thoughts of a thing, and even the identity (or the equivalence) is out of this case, which means that for any thing ('things' respectively) it is possible to not be what it is. What's next? - It's simple: such thing (or whatever it is) should be out of that identity or equivalence, therefore - at least there is some duality. Of course, it doesn't mean that there is exactly a duality, but if N (a certain number) of that multiplicity is >1, then there must be a dualism. Moreover, let's claim (without using previous start thought) that there is no duality/dualism. What does it mean? - This mean that there is something what it is. But!! How are we supposed to know that that 'something' (that is not dualism) is not dualism? - In which way? - All we have to say that there must be something else, that is not that something. So, unless there must be something else except for that previous (non-dualistic) something. And even any of our attempts to say something like: oh, there is no duality (multiplicity), so it is impossible to even think of it - then the next question automatically raises in our heads: then what must make us think that that 'non-dualism' (monism) is what it is? For example, why 'monism' is 'monism', and not something like 'tripleism'? If we don't even have anything to compare we cannot say absolutely anything without an ability to utter any thoughts. To measure is the simplest mathematical operation, and personally I'm sure that this isn't something unusual, because if we compare even one thing, we do it to itself (this thing again). So, the simplest mathematical conceptualization requires us to use a single element being compare to itself. By the way, the same in logic - in that kind of operation of identity that is called sometimes as 'irrational identity' (or kinda?), i.e. 'x=x', where 'x' can be absolutely anything, even irrational things as Pi, or square root of minus numbers, sofas, suns, molecules, galaxies, scissors, shadows, glue, etc. Your point applies to this thread: "There is No Non-dualism" arktos.boards.net/thread/8971/nondualismTaking both threads it mind it may be stated that there is neither dualism nor non-dualism...."reality just is". Your view is closer to a skeptical here. One point looks different: skeptics keep quiet (epoché) about any problem as this. For me dualism looks to be more suitable theory. If I'm going to define anything, I cannot skip an operation of dividing or separation, or – according to your point – adding something third (emptiness or nothingness) in between. I also agree that by tripling anything we won't come to anything sane, that's why I support such a view that the third isn't necessary. I'll explain. Imagine someone asks me whether I'm the same as yesterday? If I don't answer positively, the other person asks me then again: what separates me-yesterday from me-today. If there is something in between, then me-yesterday firstly approaches me-before-today, and only then it approaches me-today. But this is also impossible since me-yesterday must approaches me-before-before-yesterday before me-before-yesterday. This sequence is obviously endless. This means no changes or the infinite number of changes. Does it really work? No. Why so? The endless changes goes either through the unnecessary series of changes, or it requires infinite numbers of parts in the changing object. Impossible for an object to has infinite numbers of parts, except for the universe, but we aren't talking about the universe. (Unnecessary changes are like ab aa ab aa...) Therefore, must be something for an object to be able to change without any middle forms. The answer is in 4d time. Any object in 4d is a "worm". This means any person is not a person, but a "worm" in a time sequence. So, "a part" is imaginary. We cannot say which part is really a part. To object this ('the worm-objects') we must object lines. Since a line can be as a continuum (as real numbers, but even more real), no need to object those "worms". 4d reality is 2*2d reality that proves that it is a dualistic reality: 2d twice. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jul 21, 2023 20:06:58 GMT
Your point applies to this thread: "There is No Non-dualism" arktos.boards.net/thread/8971/nondualismTaking both threads it mind it may be stated that there is neither dualism nor non-dualism...."reality just is". Your view is closer to a skeptical here. One point looks different: skeptics keep quiet (epoché) about any problem as this. For me dualism looks to be more suitable theory. If I'm going to define anything, I cannot skip an operation of dividing or separation, or – according to your point – adding something third (emptiness or nothingness) in between. I also agree that by tripling anything we won't come to anything sane, that's why I support such a view that the third isn't necessary. I'll explain. Imagine someone asks me whether I'm the same as yesterday? If I don't answer positively, the other person asks me then again: what separates me-yesterday from me-today. If there is something in between, then me-yesterday firstly approaches me-before-today, and only then it approaches me-today. But this is also impossible since me-yesterday must approaches me-before-before-yesterday before me-before-yesterday. This sequence is obviously endless. This means no changes or the infinite number of changes. Does it really work? No. Why so? The endless changes goes either through the unnecessary series of changes, or it requires infinite numbers of parts in the changing object. Impossible for an object to has infinite numbers of parts, except for the universe, but we aren't talking about the universe. (Unnecessary changes are like ab aa ab aa...) Therefore, must be something for an object to be able to change without any middle forms. The answer is in 4d time. Any object in 4d is a "worm". This means any person is not a person, but a "worm" in a time sequence. So, "a part" is imaginary. We cannot say which part is really a part. To object this ('the worm-objects') we must object lines. Since a line can be as a continuum (as real numbers, but even more real), no need to object those "worms". 4d reality is 2*2d reality that proves that it is a dualistic reality: 2d twice. I am not even sure dualism is suitable, even though I argue against non-dualism as well, considering the contrast between x and y necessitates a formlessness that occurs between the absence of some qualities of x in y and the absence of some qualities of y in x. To give an example of this I will point to the circle: 1. There is the space inside the circle. 2. There is the space outside the circle. 3. There is space between the inside and outside as the circle form itself. Space divides space with this division being space. This results in all form as contradictory. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Jul 21, 2023 20:07:31 GMT
Your point applies to this thread: "There is No Non-dualism" arktos.boards.net/thread/8971/nondualismTaking both threads it mind it may be stated that there is neither dualism nor non-dualism...."reality just is". nah And your reason? Do you even have one? |
|
|
|
Post by jonbain on Jul 22, 2023 9:08:53 GMT
And your reason? Do you even have one?
So let me explain the obvious. The very fact of disagreement is itself impossible without dualism.
My 'nah' is the shadow of your statement. Even if i agreed, it would still be a second perspective.
The concept of dialog itself, is necessarily dualism. Because a dialog is always between two viewpoints:
Thesis, Antithesis ... (etc)
If you genuinely accepted no dualism, you would never talk to anyone. You would not type posts on the interwebs.
That would entail a dialog.
Of course the cynic in me wanted to just respond 'nah'. But the analyst won that battle.
|
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Jul 22, 2023 18:15:16 GMT
Your view is closer to a skeptical here. One point looks different: skeptics keep quiet (epoché) about any problem as this. For me dualism looks to be more suitable theory. If I'm going to define anything, I cannot skip an operation of dividing or separation, or – according to your point – adding something third (emptiness or nothingness) in between. I also agree that by tripling anything we won't come to anything sane, that's why I support such a view that the third isn't necessary. I'll explain. Imagine someone asks me whether I'm the same as yesterday? If I don't answer positively, the other person asks me then again: what separates me-yesterday from me-today. If there is something in between, then me-yesterday firstly approaches me-before-today, and only then it approaches me-today. But this is also impossible since me-yesterday must approaches me-before-before-yesterday before me-before-yesterday. This sequence is obviously endless. This means no changes or the infinite number of changes. Does it really work? No. Why so? The endless changes goes either through the unnecessary series of changes, or it requires infinite numbers of parts in the changing object. Impossible for an object to has infinite numbers of parts, except for the universe, but we aren't talking about the universe. (Unnecessary changes are like ab aa ab aa...) Therefore, must be something for an object to be able to change without any middle forms. The answer is in 4d time. Any object in 4d is a "worm". This means any person is not a person, but a "worm" in a time sequence. So, "a part" is imaginary. We cannot say which part is really a part. To object this ('the worm-objects') we must object lines. Since a line can be as a continuum (as real numbers, but even more real), no need to object those "worms". 4d reality is 2*2d reality that proves that it is a dualistic reality: 2d twice. I am not even sure dualism is suitable, even though I argue against non-dualism as well, considering the contrast between x and y necessitates a formlessness that occurs between the absence of some qualities of x in y and the absence of some qualities of y in x. To give an example of this I will point to the circle: 1. There is the space inside the circle. 2. There is the space outside the circle. 3. There is space between the inside and outside as the circle form itself. Space divides space with this division being space. This results in all form as contradictory. Yes, I see. These are very good points here. However, nothing can be said if there are no differences at all. It's possible to emerge both as monism so dualism in this way: a) everything is monism, or there are no dualism (or n-ism) b) there is a conceptual ability to divide parts in that monistic reality (a) and (b) doesn't seem to get along with, and it is a correct way of thinking, because if (b) is wrong, it is okay. I'll explain. If there are no n-isms, then we don't even know how many of anything is there. We just can't say anything. Any of our claims would be ridiculous for this theory, hence all what we would do was to imagine it - the same what is in (b). |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Aug 9, 2023 22:24:00 GMT
I am not even sure dualism is suitable, even though I argue against non-dualism as well, considering the contrast between x and y necessitates a formlessness that occurs between the absence of some qualities of x in y and the absence of some qualities of y in x. To give an example of this I will point to the circle: 1. There is the space inside the circle. 2. There is the space outside the circle. 3. There is space between the inside and outside as the circle form itself. Space divides space with this division being space. This results in all form as contradictory. Yes, I see. These are very good points here. However, nothing can be said if there are no differences at all. It's possible to emerge both as monism so dualism in this way: a) everything is monism, or there are no dualism (or n-ism) b) there is a conceptual ability to divide parts in that monistic reality (a) and (b) doesn't seem to get along with, and it is a correct way of thinking, because if (b) is wrong, it is okay. I'll explain. If there are no n-isms, then we don't even know how many of anything is there. We just can't say anything. Any of our claims would be ridiculous for this theory, hence all what we would do was to imagine it - the same what is in (b). 1. If there are no differences at all then there is no dualism, thus a monism.
2. If everything is different then everything is connected by this quality of 'difference' thus there is monism. 3. If there are no differences at all then dualism is the same as monism, thus dualism exists. 4. If everything is different then there is a multiplicity that results in dualism.
See the absurdity?
|
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Aug 9, 2023 22:25:33 GMT
And your reason? Do you even have one?
So let me explain the obvious. The very fact of disagreement is itself impossible without dualism.
My 'nah' is the shadow of your statement. Even if i agreed, it would still be a second perspective.
The concept of dialog itself, is necessarily dualism. Because a dialog is always between two viewpoints:
Thesis, Antithesis ... (etc)
If you genuinely accepted no dualism, you would never talk to anyone. You would not type posts on the interwebs.
That would entail a dialog.
Of course the cynic in me wanted to just respond 'nah'. But the analyst won that battle.
If 'all there is' is disagreement in perspectives then everything is united under this quality of contradiction thus all perspectives are one because of said share quality. If everything is distinct, and all things share this quality of distinction, then nothing is distinct. |
|
|
|
Post by Eugene 2.0 on Aug 10, 2023 17:20:34 GMT
Yes, I see. These are very good points here. However, nothing can be said if there are no differences at all. It's possible to emerge both as monism so dualism in this way: a) everything is monism, or there are no dualism (or n-ism) b) there is a conceptual ability to divide parts in that monistic reality (a) and (b) doesn't seem to get along with, and it is a correct way of thinking, because if (b) is wrong, it is okay. I'll explain. If there are no n-isms, then we don't even know how many of anything is there. We just can't say anything. Any of our claims would be ridiculous for this theory, hence all what we would do was to imagine it - the same what is in (b). 1. If there are no differences at all then there is no dualism, thus a monism.
2. If everything is different then everything is connected by this quality of 'difference' thus there is monism. 3. If there are no differences at all then dualism is the same as monism, thus dualism exists. 4. If everything is different then there is a multiplicity that results in dualism.
See the absurdity?
I agree it might seem as an absurd, but what about 'difference' different from anything else? Let's say there are no difference, and a thing, or another thing is the same as difference. In other words, 'difference' is just another thing. Then there are no things at all. For a thing to be a thing something else is needed. We got to separate somehow something from something. Otherwise, then we don't about monism either. |
|
|
|
Post by xxxxxxxxx on Aug 18, 2023 20:01:02 GMT
1. If there are no differences at all then there is no dualism, thus a monism.
2. If everything is different then everything is connected by this quality of 'difference' thus there is monism. 3. If there are no differences at all then dualism is the same as monism, thus dualism exists. 4. If everything is different then there is a multiplicity that results in dualism.
See the absurdity?
I agree it might seem as an absurd, but what about 'difference' different from anything else? Let's say there are no difference, and a thing, or another thing is the same as difference. In other words, 'difference' is just another thing. Then there are no things at all. For a thing to be a thing something else is needed. We got to separate somehow something from something. Otherwise, then we don't about monism either. True. If everything is different then the quality of 'difference' has no difference in it thus the quality of difference is fundamentally the same thing underlying all things. Everything being different results in a monism as everything is connected by the quality known as 'difference'. On the other hand if everything is the same then the qualities of 'sameness' and 'difference' are one thus we can say "everything is different" and this will be just as true. To go even further the observation that everything is one necessitates that 'oneness' contains the phenomenon of 'distinction' and with this oneness existing through distinction comes this oneness existing through the state of things standing apart...thus we end with further paradox. |
|
