What is Panspiritism?

[PeteJ]

We have all of modern science, and every philosophical insight ever, at our fingertips. But they were giants and we are standing on their shoulders.

Yes. But nobody has ever improved on Nagarjuna's metaphysics or found another fundamental theory that even works. So we're not much standing on his shoulders as sitting at his feet. Most academic philosophers don't believe he knew what he was talking about even where they study him, which they rarely do.

My disagreement is with your idea that he did not know that what he was saying is true.

I'm more and more beginning to dislike arguing about such things, however. so am happy not to do so.

[Skepdick]

My disagreement is with your idea that he did not know that what he was saying is true.

And my disagreement is with your idea that you think you can speak on behalf of dead philosophers.
My disagreement is with your idea that you believe you can read dead philosophers' minds through the re-translations and re-interpretations of their written words.

Obviously he thought what he was saying was true. If he wasn't it wouldn't be Logos.

I'm more and more beginning to dislike arguing about such things, however. so am happy not to do so.

Which is why I agreed with you. First and foremost. An empirical test which allowed me to determine whether you actually understand non-dualism. In practice, not in theory.

By choosing to defend the belief that Perenialism is distinct from Empiricism (a.k.a humanism, science etc.) you scored a non-dualistic own goal.

If two things are "the same" then they are one thing.
If two things are "different" then they can't be one thing.

[PeteJ]

You are now just making a public spectacle of yourself. It's not my problem and I shall spend no more time on it.

[Atla]

We have all of modern science, and every philosophical insight ever, at our fingertips. But they were giants and we are standing on their shoulders.

Yes. But nobody has ever improved on Nagarjuna's metaphysics or found another fundamental theory that even works. So we're not much standing on his shoulders as sitting at his feet. Most academic philosophers don't believe he knew what he was talking about even where they study him, which they rarely do.

My disagreement is with your idea that he did not know that what he was saying is true.

I'm more and more beginning to dislike arguing about such things, however. so am happy not to do so.

No human can have absolute certainty, ever. That's not about nondualism or Nagarjuna, but about anything really.

Belief in absolute certainty is very conceited, self-serving, arrogant.

[PeteJ]

No human can have absolute certainty, ever. That's not about nondualism or Nagarjuna, but about anything really.

Please prove it. I'm with Aristotle on this. Certain knowledge is identical with its object. If you can refute this statement then I'll have to back down. Otherwise I'd say your view is an opinion with no foundation.

Belief in absolute certainty is very conceited, self-serving, arrogant.

I see. And belief there is no such thing is not?

You dismiss all of mysticism with a sentence and feel this not conceited, arrogant or self-serving. I find this astonishing.

Surely you know 'I Am' with some certainty. This is 'knowldge by identity', the only form of certain knowledge.

[Atla]

No human can have absolute certainty, ever. That's not about nondualism or Nagarjuna, but about anything really.

Please prove it. I'm with Aristotle on this. Certain knowledge is identical with its object. If you can refute this statement then I'll have to back down. Otherwise I'd say your view is an opinion with no foundation.

Belief in absolute certainty is very conceited, self-serving, arrogant.

I see. And belief there is no such thing is not?

You dismiss all of mysticism with a sentence and feel this not conceited, arrogant or self-serving. I find this astonishing.

Surely you know 'I Am' with some certainty. This is 'knowldge by identity', the only form of certain knowledge.

So it turns out you too are just another old fart who is full of himself, like most nondualists.

Of course there is no 100% certain knowledge, ever, not even Aristotle or the 'I am' will save you there.

And your lie that I "dismiss all of mysticism", even though I made it abundantly clear that I fundamentally subscribe to it, well..

[PeteJ]

And your lie that I "dismiss all of mysticism", even though I made it abundantly clear that I fundamentally subscribe to it, well..

You do not subscribe to it. If you did you would not argue it is speculation. is this not obvious? You like the theory, but you don't believe that it originates in knowledge. This is a rejection of the teachings.

I am not 'full of myself'. I stick to the facts. It is the central claim of mysticism that 'I am God', or this would be one way of expressing it. To suggest this is a speculative theory is to dismiss the whole thing as a fraud.

[Atla]

And your lie that I "dismiss all of mysticism", even though I made it abundantly clear that I fundamentally subscribe to it, well..

You do not subscribe to it. If you did you would not argue it is speculation. is this not obvious? You like the theory, but you don't believe that it originates in knowledge. This is a rejection of the teachings.

I am not 'full of myself'. I stick to the facts. It is the central claim of mysticism that 'I am God', or this would be one way of expressing it. To suggest this is a speculative theory is to dismiss the whole thing as a fraud.

Your all-or-nothing comments are very off mark.

Okay I thought this was obvious, but here's a very crude example to counter your claim:

Imagine that all your direct experiences are actually part of a computer simulation. The simulation makes the world appear to have no fundamental distinction, separations. But in reality, they do exist.

Or forget simulations. How can you be 100% sure in this very world that no fundamental distinctions, separations exist, when such separations can't be percieved by their very nature?

So how can you be 100% certain through direct experience?

[Skepdick]

You are now just making a public spectacle of yourself. It's not my problem and I shall spend no more time on it.

Not only are you in the habit of talking on behalf of the dead, you seem to have assumed the habit of talking on behalf of your immediate interlocutors.

I am not making a spectacle of myself. I am making a spectacle of you. Your dualistic understanding of non-dualism is very much your problem.

[Skepdick]

I am not 'full of myself'. I stick to the facts. It is the central claim of mysticism that 'I am God', or this would be one way of expressing it. To suggest this is a speculative theory is to dismiss the whole thing as a fraud.

'I am' is non-dualism.
'I have become God' is non-dualism.
'I am becoming God' is non-dualism.

'I am God' is dualism by virtue of calling the same thing by two different names.

Dualism is the fracturing of identity.

[Atla]

bla bla bla

Aww it tries so hard to be noticed.. by anyone.. so endearing

[Skepdick]

bla bla bla

Aww it tries so hard to be noticed.. by anyone.. so endearing

Well, you took the extra 3 seconds to delete my actual response and type "bla bla bla"

I almost succeeded in being noticed. But you aren't anyone.