How would you explain oneness to a rationalist

[LarryW]

@Inliytened1  "Materialism grounds itself in a physical objective reality separate from you. "

If so, what is the 'you' made of? As I understand it, materialism says that consciousness is an emergent phenomenon of matter: matter is the basic ground of reality and there is nothing separate from matter. What you're describing sounds more like a matter/mind duality, which is the more populist philosophy, even if it's not always very well thought through. 

IMO a true monistic materialism differs from idealism in name only; whatever 'IT' is, the basic stuff of reality, it has the appearance of both matter and mind.

"But when pressed a materialist cannot answer the question of where did physical reality come from. " 

Yes, it seems that way but is an idealist any better at explaining where consciousness comes from?  Or where God comes from? I guess this problem is due to our belief in cause & effect occurring in time, where we need a chain of causes and effects. 

[Inliytened1]

35 minutes ago, LarryW said:

@Inliytened1  "Materialism grounds itself in a physical objective reality separate from you. "

If so, what is the 'you' made of? As I understand it, materialism says that consciousness is an emergent phenomenon of matter: matter is the basic ground of reality and there is nothing separate from matter. What you're describing sounds more like a matter/mind duality, which is the more populist philosophy, even if it's not always very well thought through. 

IMO a true monistic materialism differs from idealism in name only; whatever 'IT' is, the basic stuff of reality, it has the appearance of both matter and mind.

"But when pressed a materialist cannot answer the question of where did physical reality come from. " 

Yes, it seems that way but is an idealist any better at explaining where consciousness comes from?  Or where God comes from? I guess this problem is due to our belief in cause & effect occurring in time, where we need a chain of causes and effects. 

Not quite.   Yes it maintains the underlying substance is matter  but that is not the same thing as Oneness metaphysically.  It says there is an objective reality - in other words something behind the scenes.  This means that the tree outside your door right now beyond your direct experience actually exists as a tree without anyone conscious of it.  (Matter exists independent of Conscioisness)  Its physically there and you are physically where you are.  As you said mind is simply an emergent phenomenon of matter.  Therefore physicality is real and so separation is real.  And of course science will eventually have an explanation to how that can be.    

Notice if you say oh well the tree and you are still one because they are matter that this in fact is held within your consciousness or imagination.  

[Dodo]

43 minutes ago, LarryW said:

@Inliytened1  "Materialism grounds itself in a physical objective reality separate from you. "

If so, what is the 'you' made of? As I understand it, materialism says that consciousness is an emergent phenomenon of matter: matter is the basic ground of reality and there is nothing separate from matter. What you're describing sounds more like a matter/mind duality, which is the more populist philosophy, even if it's not always very well thought through. 

IMO a true monistic materialism differs from idealism in name only; whatever 'IT' is, the basic stuff of reality, it has the appearance of both matter and mind.

"But when pressed a materialist cannot answer the question of where did physical reality come from. " 

Yes, it seems that way but is an idealist any better at explaining where consciousness comes from?  Or where God comes from? I guess this problem is due to our belief in cause & effect occurring in time, where we need a chain of causes and effects. 

Here is a complete nondual theory of everything that explains how there is "physical reality" from nothingness.

There is actually no physical reality. All reality that you can be aware of right now is happening only in a mind-space - as your sense perceptions. Notice that you do not notice matter right now, you notice sensations and perceptions. 

Now, since those sensations and perceptions are made out of Mind, we can call them illusory. But there is something real here which knows those sensations and perceptions. That's called you. But that you is empty of content, the content is the illusory bit (mind stuff) mentioned earlier. 

Real Formlessness -> The you that is empty from objects, not even an I-thought object in it. This one's reality can be verified directly as that in experience which never changes. 

Illusory Form -> All the perceptions, conceptions and sensations that appear to make up a solid world made out of matter.

Real formlessness + Illusory Form  appears as Real Form. The Illusory Form borrows reality from the Real Formless and the Real Formless enjoys the play of illusory forms. Tadaaaaa (as Leo likes to say  )

When the two merge, they are inseparable just like when you put cocoa in milk, the two will merge into one drink, which is better than both parts alone. 

PS: But notice please why this is totally Nondual!  The Real Formlessness = Nothing and Illusory Form = Nothing, so these two fish that are swimming together are actually the same No-fish (nothing) just looked from a different perspective. I hope someone gets this and/or resonates with this because to me it's so damn beautiful. 

Edited September 23, 2020 by Dodo

[LarryW]

@Inliytened1  I think I'm in danger of conflating materialism with realism. Realism is the idea that objects exist beyond my conceptions. Therefore there's a separation. But I don't understand where your separation arises with materialism, if mind is separate from matter, that's not materialism is it? 

@Dodo a neat theory if true. But, just because something isn't in my awareness, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. (Sorry for the triple negative!). How about if physical and mental reality are actually the same thing, just understood in different ways. Matter is aware and mind is material. 

Edited September 23, 2020 by LarryW

[Inliytened1]

22 minutes ago, LarryW said:

@Inliytened1  I think I'm in danger of conflating materialism with realism. Realism is the idea that objects exist beyond my conceptions. Therefore there's a separation. But I don't understand where your separation arises with materialism, if mind is separate from matter, that's not materialism is it? 

When we refer to materialism here we are talking about realism.  Ultimately they lead down the same road.   In truth matter arises from mind so all is one  Materialism asseses that mind arises from matter - hence separation.  Realism may not specify that specifically in its definition of course but it may be limited in what it is defined as.  It implicitly grounds itself in matter being the substance of reality.  Extra sneaky

 

[Dodo]

6 minutes ago, LarryW said:

 

@Dodo a neat theory if true. But, just because something isn't in my awareness, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. (Sorry for the triple negative!). How about if physical and mental reality are actually the same thing, just understood in different ways. Matter is aware and mind is material. 

The thing is that this theory is inline with experience and it explains how there is something from nothing. (There isnt) 

If you want to believe in this matter thing, then it is still an open question how is Something created out of nothing. 

Edited September 23, 2020 by Dodo

[Someone here]

@LarryW mankind likes to define reality as stuff that has substantiality independent from the mind. Yet this definition is completely dependent on a mind which has no way to prove that anything exists in it's absence. Yet you insist that whatever is occurring within the mind is unreal or secondary while whatever is mind-independent is real and substantial. Which is quite paradoxical. For no one has ever accessed anything beyond their mind. If the considerations of the mind are unreal then so are the items of considerations.. And therefore nothing exists.  But since the considerations of the mind are the only thing tool there is even to deny its own credibility.. Therefore.. Nothing exists except in the mind. 

Edited September 23, 2020 by Someone here

[peachboy]

First person consciousness is possible. First person un-consciousness is impossible.

If first-person consciousness is possible, and first-person un-consciousness is impossible, then first-person consciousness is eternal.

There can never be a moment when you are not having an experience. All that can change is the nature of that experience.

[Dodo]

3 minutes ago, peachboy said:

First person consciousness is possible. First person un-consciousness is impossible.

If first-person consciousness is possible, and first-person un-consciousness is impossible, then first-person consciousness is eternal.

There can never be a moment when you are not having an experience. All that can change is the nature of that experience.

strong stuff bro.. I need another hit of that brb 

[LarryW]

@Inliytened1  "When we refer to materialism here we are talking about realism." There's a devil here in the details of the definitions, causing me to have sloppy thinking. Darn, if only I'd done that philosophy course at uni instead of stats! But I do perceive the important distinction is between separation and unity.  

@Dodo  where I differ from you is here: "sensations and perceptions are made out of Mind," I'd say that perception and suchness is prior to mind; mind is the idea we create to explain our perception and put it in a container, so to speak. BTW I don't believe in matter any more than mind, both are maps to help us navigate life, but aren't actual.

 @Someone here   "Yet you insist that whatever is occurring within the mind is unreal"  Not quite. I'm trying to get materialists to follow the logic of their position to transcend itself and burst out into mysticism. If I can, which is unlikely. Having said that, what do we mean by real/unreal? Surely it's linked with the theory of realism? In that case, no, my awareness isn't real, neither is the tree outside my house. 

 

[Someone here]

26 minutes ago, LarryW said:

no, my awareness isn't real, neither is the tree outside my house. 

 

Huh? What is real then?  So you are denying both your subjective experience and the possibility of an external objective medium.   Well you can make a case against naive realism. But you can't deny your awareness. 

Edited September 23, 2020 by Someone here

[TrustTheProcess]

bahahaha... you don't.

This is as hard as explaining evolution to a fundamentalist christian from the 1400s. 

Edited September 23, 2020 by louhad

[LarryW]

9 hours ago, Someone here said:

Huh? What is real then?  So you are denying both your subjective experience and the possibility of an external objective medium.   Well you can make a case against naive realism. But you can't deny your awareness. 

How about this: subjective vs objective existence is the usual naive realist duality we live by most of the time, but it's a creation of  our thinking, a model of reality. Same thing with real and imaginary existence.  I don't deny awareness, but if you look at the arguments in this thread, it's awareness which is used as the ground for describing existence itself, therefore it looks like awareness (suchness) is prior to existence/non-existence, real/non-real, subjective/objective etc etc. 

Edited September 24, 2020 by LarryW

[Dodo]

9 hours ago, louhad said:

bahahaha... you don't.

This is as hard as explaining evolution to a fundamentalist christian from the 1400s. 

Hahah yes we can conclude this thread with this response. I vote this is the correct answer

[LarryW]

@Dodo  me too, I'm not really going to start arguments with fundamental rationalists, though it's been useful to thrash this out for the benefit of my own inner rationalist and put it in its place. Reason does have its uses after all. 

[WaveInTheOcean]

Can you explain 'the biology of an ant' without taking into consideration the environment in which the ant is situated?

Can you explain the biology of a human being without taking into consideration its environment?

Can you have 'life' -- conscious beings -- without 'environment' ? Can you have environment without life/conscious beings??

Can you have 'self' without 'other' ?

[Someone here]

11 hours ago, LarryW said:

How about this: subjective vs objective existence is the usual naive realist duality we live by most of the time, but it's a creation of  our thinking, a model of reality. Same thing with real and imaginary existence.  I don't deny awareness, but if you look at the arguments in this thread, it's awareness which is used as the ground for describing existence itself, therefore it looks like awareness (suchness) is prior to existence/non-existence, real/non-real, subjective/objective etc etc. 

Yes that's exactly correct.

Awareness is prior to distinctions such as real /unreal. Subjective/objective.. Existence/non-existence etc.  For there must be awareness aware of such distinctions. But itself is not a subject to distinction. It produces distinctions but itself doesn't have any distinctions. 

Edited September 24, 2020 by Someone here

[allislove]

On 9/23/2020 at 8:45 AM, RichnNL said:

Just as a fun thought experiment if a very scientific rational guy said believing everything is one is just like believing in flat earth there is no evidence, just your perspective etc.

Just use the same argument. Tell this guy anything and ask if there is any evidence that whatever hears the words which you said is separate. Is there any evidence of separation? :))  

[Forestluv]

I would avoid a binary construct that there is either separate things or One. The biggest battle in a rationalist mindset is that if there is One, that means there is no separation and they have to reject separation. I think a better approach is saying “Yes, it’s true there is separation. You are correct. And there is ALSO oneness. 

It’s a similar dynamic of how rationalists struggle to understand immaterial. They think if there is immaterial, that means they must reject material.

And they are also the same, yet that’s a further step down the line. 

[RichnNL]

Wow thanks guys, I am not kissing ass here but these are all really good answers even the "you can't" answers. I think a rationalist would have counter arguments to everyone of these explanations probably saying they are word games. This has definitely enlarged my understanding of oneness.

Absolute truth is so challenging to put in words. I think relating oneness to the big bang and how everything was once one and the division is just in our minds would come not too much resistance.