Is nonduality the absolute or a contingent knowledge?

[Strannik]

25 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

@Strannik I've been thinking, and I guess you could postulate an ontological category that is distinct to the most fundamental aspect of whatever "this" is, but I don't know if it makes any sense, or if it matters at all.

well, there are so many variants of ontologies offering so many different versions of reality with different modes of interaction or causal relations between "this" and "other than this", some of them may be practically irrelevant to our mode of functioning, but others may be more relevant. How about dual aspect monism, or panpsychism, or dualism, or classical theology, or just plain materialism (yeah, it faces the "hard problem of consciousness" but that's not a complete showstopper yet)? 

Edited December 13, 2022 by Strannik

[Strannik]

54 minutes ago, Devin said:

i suggest you question that belief, sincerely. The liberation you're seeking is right in front of you

If you think you are experiencing the totality of infinity right now, why aren't you experiencing my thoughts or feelings that must be included in the same infinity? Thell me what I'm seeing right now and I will believe in infinity. But if you can't, that means you are just fooling yourself with a fantasy about "infinity".

Edited December 13, 2022 by Strannik

[Nilsi]

4 minutes ago, Strannik said:

If you think you are experiencing the totality of infinity right now, why aren't you experiencing my thoughts or feelings that must be included in the same infinity? Thell me what I'm seeing right now and I will believe in infinity. But if you can't, that means you are just fooling yourself.

If I were experiencing your thoughts right now, I couldn't experience mine. Hence we take it one at a time.

[Strannik]

6 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

If I were experiencing your thoughts right now, I couldn't experience mine. Hence we take it one at a time.

Nope, infinity is infinity, it must include everything here and now. If you are experiencing thoughts one at a time, that's not an experince of infinity, that's an experience of finitude. You can "extrapolate" it to infinity in your imagination or abstract thinking, but it would be just that - imagination or thinking, not actual experience. That's what I said (how many times?) - people are mistaking their fantasies for reality, that's how any religion works.  

Edited December 13, 2022 by Strannik

[Carl-Richard]

19 minutes ago, Strannik said:

well, there are so many variants of ontologies offering so many different versions of reality with different modes of interaction or causal relations between "this" and "other than this", some of them may be practically irrelevant to our mode of functioning, but others may be more relevant. How about dual aspect monism, or panpsychism, or dualism, or classical theology, or just plain materialism (yeah, it faces the "hard problem of consciousness" but that's not a complete showstopper yet)? 

If you care about the things that analytic philosophy cares about, it's harder to go with things like idealism, but people like Bernardo Kastrup are challenging that notion. For most laymen though, simplicity is the most appealing, and if they get exposed to the mystical experience which is able to create a contrast with the cultural conditioning of physicalism/materialism, they will opt for idealism without skipping a heartbeat.

Edited December 13, 2022 by Carl-Richard

[Strannik]

26 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

If you care about the things that analytic philosophy cares about, it's harder to go with things like idealism, but people like Bernardo Kastrup are challenging that notion. For most laymen though, simplicity is most appealing, and if they get exposed to the mystical experience that is able to create a contrast with the mainstream conditioning of physicalism/materialism, they will opt for idealism without skipping a heartbeat.

Right, agree with that. I'm very familiar with Kastrup's work. He usually uses the parsimony argument, which is pragmatically relevant, but still cannot be used to rule out other ontologies completely (because the Reality, whatever it is, would not care less about our parsimony arguments). Other than that, I agree that pragmatically idealism is more appealing. But pragmatic choice of a paradigm is a contingent choice. Pragmatism, parsimony and simplicity cannot justify the claim of the "absolute truth". So, the bottom-line: as a contingent and pragmatic truth, idealism is good, no question about that (and that is why It's still a choice of mine), but that alone does not qualify it to be the "absolute truth" (which is the answer to the title of the topic).  

So, you are right about the choice that laymen take. The issue I'm addressing in this topic is that for them it is most often simply replacing one religion (of materialism or whatever they had) with another (of idealism), still remaining within the framework of religious beliefs. I'm not saying it is a problem that needs to be urgently fixed. It's ok to have beliefs, this is what majority of people do. It's just that some people may be mature enough to go beyond any religious frameworks.   

(what a pleasure to talk with intelligent person  )

Edited December 13, 2022 by Strannik

[Carl-Richard]

2 hours ago, Strannik said:

Right, agree with that. I'm very familiar with Kastrup's work. He usually uses the parsimony argument, which is pragmatically relevant, but still cannot be used to rule out other ontologies completely (because the Reality, whatever it is, would not care less about our parsimony arguments). Other than that, I agree that pragmatically idealism is more appealing. But pragmatic choice of a paradigm is a contingent choice, pragmatism cannot justify the claim of the "absolute truth". So, the bottom-line: as a contingent and pragmatic truth, idealism is good, no question about that (and that is why It's still a choice of mine), but that alone does not qualify it to be the "absolute truth" (which is the answer to the title of the topic).  

But then what people like Bernardo Kastrup or his Advaita friends or me would say is that all of philosophy is pragmatic, all of it is contingent mind stuff. So when we engage in that realm, things like parsimony are paramount. The ontology itself is not absolute truth, but what the ontology is actually pointing to and occuring within, is absolute truth. The absoluteness is just a description of phenomenologically coming into contact with it, not the conceptual account of it.

Edited December 13, 2022 by Carl-Richard

[Strannik]

3 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

But then what people like Bernardo Kastrup or his Advaita friends or me would say is that all of philosophy is pragmatic, all of it is contingent mind stuff. So when we engage in that realm, things like parsimony are paramount. The ontology itself is not absolute truth, but what the ontology is actually pointing to and occuring within, is absolute truth. The absoluteness is just a description of phenomenlogically coming into contact with it, not the conceptual account of it.

Agreed!

[Devin]

57 minutes ago, Strannik said:

If you think you are experiencing the totality of infinity right now, why aren't you experiencing my thoughts or feelings that must be included in the same infinity? Thell me what I'm seeing right now and I will believe in infinity. But if you can't, that means you are just fooling yourself with a fantasy about "infinity".

You're not seeing anything

 

there is no totality of infinity, that's finitude

Edited December 13, 2022 by Devin

[thisintegrated]

29 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

If you care about the things that analytic philosophy cares about, it's harder to go with things like idealism, but people like Bernardo Kastrup are challenging that notion. For most laymen though, simplicity is the most appealing, and if they get exposed to the mystical experience which is able to create a contrast with the cultural conditioning of physicalism/materialism, they will opt for idealism without skipping a heartbeat.

It's interesting to consider the different ontological frameworks that have been proposed and how they might relate to our understanding of reality. Dual aspect monism, for example, suggests that there is only one fundamental substance that exists, and that both mind and matter are different aspects of this substance. Panpsychism, on the other hand, posits that consciousness is a fundamental aspect of the universe and is present in some form in all things. Dualism, on the other hand, asserts the existence of two fundamental substances: mind and matter, which are separate and distinct from each other.
 

10 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

But then what people like Bernardo Kastrup or his Advaita friends or me would say is that all of philosophy is pragmatic, all of it is contingent mind stuff. So when we engage in that realm, things like parsimony are paramount. The ontology itself is not absolute truth, but what the ontology is actually pointing to and occuring within, is absolute truth. The absoluteness is just a description of phenomenlogically coming into contact with it, not the conceptual account of it.

I see what you're saying. Yes, the absolute truth cannot be conceptualized or described in any way, it can only be experienced. And the ontological frameworks we use are just pragmatic tools to help us understand and navigate our experiences. So, in that sense, the choice of ontology is a matter of personal preference and what works best for us in our individual journey towards the absolute truth. But the absolute truth itself remains beyond any conceptual framework or ontological category.

[Devin]

48 minutes ago, Strannik said:

Nope, infinity is infinity, it must include everything here and now. If you are experiencing thoughts one at a time, that's not an experince of infinity, that's an experience of finitude. You can "extrapolate" it to infinity in your imagination or abstract thinking, but it would be just that - imagination or thinking, not actual experience. That's what I said (how many times?) - people are mistaking their fantasies for reality, that's how any religion works.  

time is another belief of yours; "now", "one at a time"

Edited December 13, 2022 by Devin

[thisintegrated]

29 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

If you care about the things that analytic philosophy cares about, it's harder to go with things like idealism, but people like Bernardo Kastrup are challenging that notion. For most laymen though, simplicity is the most appealing, and if they get exposed to the mystical experience which is able to create a contrast with the cultural conditioning of physicalism/materialism, they will opt for idealism without skipping a heartbeat.

It's interesting to consider the different ontological frameworks that have been proposed and how they might relate to our understanding of reality. Dual aspect monism, for example, suggests that there is only one fundamental substance that exists, and that both mind and matter are different aspects of this substance. Panpsychism, on the other hand, posits that consciousness is a fundamental aspect of the universe and is present in some form in all things. Dualism, on the other hand, asserts the existence of two fundamental substances: mind and matter, which are separate and distinct from each other.
 

10 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

But then what people like Bernardo Kastrup or his Advaita friends or me would say is that all of philosophy is pragmatic, all of it is contingent mind stuff. So when we engage in that realm, things like parsimony are paramount. The ontology itself is not absolute truth, but what the ontology is actually pointing to and occuring within, is absolute truth. The absoluteness is just a description of phenomenlogically coming into contact with it, not the conceptual account of it.

I see what you're saying. Yes, the absolute truth cannot be conceptualized or described in any way, it can only be experienced. And the ontological frameworks we use are just pragmatic tools to help us understand and navigate our experiences. So, in that sense, the choice of ontology is a matter of personal preference and what works best for us in our individual journey towards the absolute truth. But the absolute truth itself remains beyond any conceptual framework or ontological category.

[Strannik]

Just now, Devin said:

time is another belief of yours, "now"

omg! 

there is only "now" but its phenomenal content constantly changes and we directly experience it "one content at a time". This is an idiom in English language and does not mean that I believe that time is real. (and when are you going to stop pretending to be an idiot?)

[Nilsi]

1 hour ago, Strannik said:

Nope, infinity is infinity, it must include everything here and now. If you are experiencing thoughts one at a time, that's not an experince of infinity, that's an experience of finitude. You can "extrapolate" it to infinity in your imagination or abstract thinking, but it would be just that - imagination or thinking, not actual experience. That's what I said (how many times?) - people are mistaking their fantasies for reality, that's how any religion works.  

Actually, you are mistaking your fantasies for reality

 

[vladorion]

It's funny seeing people triggered when absolute truth (aka their religious beliefs) gets challenged. 

[Devin]

36 minutes ago, Strannik said:

omg! 

there is only "now" but its phenomenal content constantly changes and we directly experience it "one content at a time". This is an idiom in English language and does not mean that I believe that time is real. (and when are you going to stop pretending to be an idiot?)

so you purport(via conjecture, not by lying) you don't believe in time, but you believe only one thing happens at a TIME. There's no happening one at a time, that would be time

Edited December 13, 2022 by Devin

[Nilsi]

Just now, vladorion said:

It's funny seeing people triggered when absolute truth (aka their religious beliefs) gets challenged. 

lol 

Im so triggered, I'm shaking.

You are the one bringing believes into this. 

I will confess, that my use of irony is sometimes a bit subtle, but that you have to deal with.

If you can't grasp that this is infinity, you just have more "work" to do.

No reason to get salty about it.

[Strannik]

59 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

But then what people like Bernardo Kastrup or his Advaita friends or me would say is that all of philosophy is pragmatic, all of it is contingent mind stuff. So when we engage in that realm, things like parsimony are paramount. The ontology itself is not absolute truth, but what the ontology is actually pointing to and occuring within, is absolute truth. The absoluteness is just a description of phenomenlogically coming into contact with it, not the conceptual account of it.

But one thing I want to add: for idealist philosophers and spiritual teachers the quality of teaching and presenting the material matters. Kastrup, Rupert Spira, even more populistic Tolle give good quality teachings, and that, as a cumulative effect, can make idealism and nonduality more and more influential. But poor quality teachings do exactly the opposite and compromise the movement. That's why I'm more concerned about poor quality and toxic presentations of nonduality teachings by teachers like Leo and other similar cheap teachers. Spiritual teaching requires high level of maturity, knowledge and experience, that is why in spiritual traditions (like Buddhism) the lineage holders would only pass the transmissions to the students they tested and trusted. In our days there are a lot of self-proclaimed immature "Enlightened" teachers presenting poor quality practices and teachings (which you can also pretty much tell by wild beliefs and unhinged behavior of the followers), especially because it is so tempting to make money on that, and eventually it is going to take a toll and divert people from nonduality.

Edited December 13, 2022 by Strannik

[Nilsi]

9 minutes ago, Strannik said:

But one thing I want to add: for idealist philosophers and spiritual teachers the quality of teaching and presenting the material matters. Kastrup, Rupert Spira, even more populistic Tolle give good quality teachings, and that, as a cumulative effect, can make idealism and nonduality more and more influential. But poor quality teachings do exactly the opposite and compromise the movement. That's why I'm more concerned about poor quality and toxic presentations of nonduality teachings by teachers like Leo and other similar cheap teachers. Spiritual teaching requires high level of maturity, knowledge and experience, that is why in spiritual traditions (like Buddhism) the lineage holders would only pass the transmissions to the students they tested and trusted. In our days there are a lot of self-proclaimed immature "Enlightened" teachers presenting poor quality practices and teachings (which you can also pretty much tell by wild beliefs and unhinged behavior of the followers), especially because it is so tempting to make money on that, and eventually it is going to take a toll and divert people from nonduality.

That's a fair point, but it's not obvious to me that a "serious presentation" is an effective teaching strategy.

I'd take the madness of an Osho or Ralston everyday of the week over elderly Eckhart or sleepy Spira. 

[Strannik]

6 minutes ago, Nilsi said:

That's a fair point, but it's not obvious to me that a "serious presentation" is an effective teaching strategy.

I'd take the madness of an Osho or Ralston everyday of the week over elderly Eckhart or sleepy Spira. 

Exactly. Osho is obviously a fake (even though a really smart one). I personally know someone who lived in his ashram for many years and knows what was going on as an insider, it was outrageous. But you still resonate with his madness giving you "spiritual high" rather than with precision and depth of Spira's teachings that require mundane and hard spiritual work on yourself.  That's exactly the problem.