There is No Non-Dualism

[Eodnhoj7]

Nondualism is a means of defining truth by way of negation and as such is a concept. Non-dualism's core meaning lies in the fact that truth is "not this" or "not that". As such there is no non-dualism when self applied. There is also no negation (as negation is a thing as a negative definition or rather a negating concept) and "no not-this" or "no not-that".

[Dontaskme]

Nondualism is a means of defining truth by way of negation and as such is a concept. Non-dualism's core meaning lies in the fact that truth is "not this" or "not that". As such there is no non-dualism when self applied. There is also no negation (as negation is a thing as a negative definition or rather a negating concept) and "no not-this" or "no not-that".

One divided by itself is always one appearing as if two, or multiplicy. That's how one infinitely exists, as it's same, but different other.

The thought that we are all separate is such a isolating and alienating thought. How could separation be possible? that would mean multiple realities existing outside of consciousness. When in reality, there is zero access to any other reality outside of consciousness itself, and we are all conscious of that, all of us. At least any one of us, who is conscious.

[Dontaskme]

Another way to describe 'Non-dualism' is to say Non-dualism is Duality, which points to the illusory nature of duality.

[Iwannaplato]

Nondualism is a means of defining truth by way of negation and as such is a concept. Non-dualism's core meaning lies in the fact that truth is "not this" or "not that". As such there is no non-dualism when self applied. There is also no negation (as negation is a thing as a negative definition or rather a negating concept) and "no not-this" or "no not-that".

You're taking language as a conduit/container or mirror of 'things/reality/truth'. Language can be pointing also.

It can be meant to elicit.

To lead to certain experiences and views.

It can have other functions: like to disrupt other thinking or temporarily stop a habit.

Part of an interaction between humans.

Here's a lovely, old explanation/critique of the conduit metaphor (which is kind of model) of language.
http://www.biolinguagem.com/ling_cog_cu ... taphor.pdf

[Impenitent]

could the duality of not knot be two half hitches?

-Imp

[Iwannaplato]

could the duality of not knot be two half hitches?

-Imp

I'm afraid your post is nought.

[Impenitent]

could the duality of not knot be two half hitches?

-Imp

I'm afraid your post is nought.

crosses, foiled again

-Imp

[Eodnhoj7]

Nondualism is a means of defining truth by way of negation and as such is a concept. Non-dualism's core meaning lies in the fact that truth is "not this" or "not that". As such there is no non-dualism when self applied. There is also no negation (as negation is a thing as a negative definition or rather a negating concept) and "no not-this" or "no not-that".

One divided by itself is always one appearing as if two, or multiplicy. That's how one infinitely exists, as it's same, but different other.

The thought that we are all separate is such a isolating and alienating thought. How could separation be possible? that would mean multiple realities existing outside of consciousness. When in reality, there is zero access to any other reality outside of consciousness itself, and we are all conscious of that, all of us. At least any one of us, who is conscious.

If the multiplicity occurs through a perpetual division then this multiplicity is one as all things are connected by this singular nature of division which spans across all things. Reality is neither dualistic nor non-dualistic.

[Eodnhoj7]

Nondualism is a means of defining truth by way of negation and as such is a concept. Non-dualism's core meaning lies in the fact that truth is "not this" or "not that". As such there is no non-dualism when self applied. There is also no negation (as negation is a thing as a negative definition or rather a negating concept) and "no not-this" or "no not-that".

You're taking language as a conduit/container or mirror of 'things/reality/truth'. Language can be pointing also.

It can be meant to elicit.

To lead to certain experiences and views.

It can have other functions: like to disrupt other thinking or temporarily stop a habit.

Part of an interaction between humans.

Here's a lovely, old explanation/critique of the conduit metaphor (which is kind of model) of language.
http://www.biolinguagem.com/ling_cog_cu ... taphor.pdf

Language ends in contradiction and all things can be put within language simply through the paradox of stating "language cannot define reality" (in stating "language cannot define reality" we are defining reality by what it is not, i.e. language, thus putting a negative definition to reality. This negative definition, i.e. what a thing is not, is a definition thus by stating "x is not" we are still defining x.).

[Iwannaplato]

Language ends in contradiction and all things can be put within language simply through the paradox of stating "language cannot define reality" (in stating "language cannot define reality" we are defining reality by what it is not, i.e. language, thus putting a negative definition to reality. This negative definition, i.e. what a thing is not, is a definition thus by stating "x is not" we are still defining x.).

Though I was saying, sometimes language isn't even trying to define reality. For example, it's trying to elicit experiences. No contradiction. You're treating sentences like maps and maps of reality assertions.

We do stuff with language. We move things. We elicit. We do. We trigger. We lead. We stop. We triangulate until two people resonate. We adjust.

People get into a lot of problems with mirror and correspondance assumptions of language and truth. I mean, those are useful models also. But it's not what we are always doing. Sometimes it's a dance.

I'll try to respond to you more in these ways from here on out.

[Eodnhoj7]

Language ends in contradiction and all things can be put within language simply through the paradox of stating "language cannot define reality" (in stating "language cannot define reality" we are defining reality by what it is not, i.e. language, thus putting a negative definition to reality. This negative definition, i.e. what a thing is not, is a definition thus by stating "x is not" we are still defining x.).

Though I was saying, sometimes language isn't even trying to define reality. For example, it's trying to elicit experiences. No contradiction. You're treating sentences like maps and maps of reality assertions.

We do stuff with language. We move things. We elicit. We do. We trigger. We lead. We stop. We triangulate until two people resonate. We adjust.

People get into a lot of problems with mirror and correspondance assumptions of language and truth. I mean, those are useful models also. But it's not what we are always doing. Sometimes it's a dance.

I'll try to respond to you more in these ways from here on out.

You cannot state that "sometimes language isn't even trying to define reality" when language is reality as it underlies reality as it occurs through reality. Language is real with the totality of language being unified under an absolute silence that embodies all things.

[Iwannaplato]

You cannot state that "sometimes language isn't even trying to define reality"

Au contraire, I did state that.

when language is reality as it underlies reality as it occurs through reality.

I don't see defining something the same thing as underlying or occuring through. Sure, language is a part of reality. In a sense that was my point.

Language is real

Sure. Language is real. It just isn't always like how it seems like you consider it always is.

with the totality of language being unified under an absolute silence that embodies all things.

I don't know what we do with that but it has a nice poetic flair.

[Eodnhoj7]

You cannot state that "sometimes language isn't even trying to define reality"

Au contraire, I did state that.

when language is reality as it underlies reality as it occurs through reality.

I don't see defining something the same thing as underlying or occuring through. Sure, language is a part of reality. In a sense that was my point.

Language is real

Sure. Language is real. It just isn't always like how it seems like you consider it always is.

with the totality of language being unified under an absolute silence that embodies all things.

I don't know what we do with that but it has a nice poetic flair.

1. And in saying that language sometimes doesn't define reality you are pointing to what language cannot always do, a negative boundary to be specific, thus you are defining reality by what it is not. In stating that language does not define reality, even if only sometimes, you are using language to define reality by what it is not...in using language to say that language does not work you are paradoxically making language work.

2. That fact that language occurs through being makes it being.

3. And you are using language to justify your point.

4. If silence accurately describes reality, at least the totality of reality that is, then silence is its own language as language is descriptive in nature.