Philosophy Now Forum

Eodnhoj7 wrote: So you listen to loons...do you listen to yourself then?

Well I hear myself politely responding to your questions in this thread but don't appear to hear any response to my earlier question? Still, what can one expect from a loon.

Atla wrote:That's it, keep deflecting ...

Well it's clear that you are one of these talking 'nondualists' as such which type of monist are you, a substance monist, an idealist monist, an idealist spiritual monist, a neutral monist, a reflexive monist?

And you actually believe that you are a valuable contributor on this forum.

Where did I claim that?

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Sun Sep 01, 2019 1:58 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: So you listen to loons...do you listen to yourself then?

Well I hear myself politely responding to your questions in this thread but don't appear to hear any response to my earlier question? Still, what can one expect from a loon.

Dont be so hard yourself calling yourself such things...it is not like you have much support to begin with.

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Sun Sep 01, 2019 2:18 am Well it's clear that you are one of these talking 'nondualists' as such which type of monist are you, a substance monist, an idealist monist, an idealist spiritual monist, a neutral monist, a reflexive monist?

Nondualism is different from any type of monism, that's a major point.
Can we drop this already?

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Sep 01, 2019 6:58 am Nondualism is different from any type of monism, that's a major point.

How many things exist? Not 2.

if "Not 2" means 1. That's Existence Monism.
if "Not 2" means 3 or more. That's Priority Monism.

The only way that your statement is true is if "Not 2" means 0. Nothing exists.

You are so desperate to be different, you are exactly the same as all sophists.

Skepdick wrote: ↑Sun Sep 01, 2019 8:05 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Sep 01, 2019 6:58 am Nondualism is different from any type of monism, that's a major point.

How many things exist? Not 2.

if "Not 2" means 1. That's Existence Monism.
if "Not 2" means 3 or more. That's Priority Monism.

The only way that your statement is true is if "Not 2" means 0. Nothing exists.

You are so desperate to be different, you are exactly the same as all sophists.

Whoosh
But you're a special case, I don't think your brain is even capable of going outside dualistic thinking.

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Sep 01, 2019 8:17 am But you're a special case, I don't think your brain is even capable of going outside dualistic thinking.

I think your brain fell outside it.

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Dont be so hard yourself calling yourself such things...it is not like you have much support to begin with.

Wow! You really do live in your own little world.

Still not hearing a reply to my question. Was it too difficult for you? I did try to make it as simple as possible.

Atla[/quote wrote: Nondualism is different from any type of monism, that's a major point. ...

Not really, it's just an assertion a major point would to say why? But I seriously doubt the assertion as Philosophy has been discussing the idea for over two thousand years now hence we've had to categorise the types.So I'm betting your 'non-dualism' falls into one of them and more than likely the idealist spritual one.

Can we drop this already?

Feel free not to reply.

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Sun Sep 01, 2019 10:32 am

Atla[/quote wrote: Nondualism is different from any type of monism, that's a major point. ...

Not really, it's just an assertion a major point would to say why? But I seriously doubt the assertion as Philosophy has been discussing the idea for over two thousand years now hence we've had to categorise the types.So I'm betting your 'non-dualism' falls into one of them and more than likely the idealist spritual one.

Can we drop this already?

Feel free not to reply.

No, this nondualism doesn't fall into any Western philosophy category. Basically all of Western philosophy is dualistic thinking (even what is categorized as 'nondual' from the West).
I stated this many times on this forum. Can this statement penetrate your mind? I don't think so.

Arising_uk wrote: ↑Sun Sep 01, 2019 10:32 am

Atla[/quote wrote: Nondualism is different from any type of monism, that's a major point. ...

Not really, it's just an assertion a major point would to say why? But I seriously doubt the assertion as Philosophy has been discussing the idea for over two thousand years now hence we've had to categorise the types.So I'm betting your 'non-dualism' falls into one of them and more than likely the idealist spritual one.

Can we drop this already?

Feel free not to reply.

Now, do you have a suggestion about the purpose of Göbekli Tepe?

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Nov 19, 2018 12:32 pm What do you think was the purpose of this unbelievably old site?

Was it perhaps a gateway to the afterlife, or maybe something else entirely? (Perhaps they hadn't even come up with the idea of an afterlife yet?)

Gateway to the heavens, more like.. to be closer to/waiting for their God to return, as are many of the ancient sites around the world.

Angkor Wat is breathtakingly beautiful in appearance..

MagsJ wrote: ↑Sun Sep 01, 2019 11:25 am

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Nov 19, 2018 12:32 pm What do you think was the purpose of this unbelievably old site?

Was it perhaps a gateway to the afterlife, or maybe something else entirely? (Perhaps they hadn't even come up with the idea of an afterlife yet?)

Gateway to the heavens, more like.. to be closer to/waiting for their God to return, as are many of the ancient sites around the world.

Angkor Wat is breathtakingly beautiful in appearance..

Most likely with heaven being some transcendental experience caused by reorganizing earths electromagnetic energy.

MagsJ wrote: ↑Sun Sep 01, 2019 11:25 am

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Nov 19, 2018 12:32 pm What do you think was the purpose of this unbelievably old site?

Was it perhaps a gateway to the afterlife, or maybe something else entirely? (Perhaps they hadn't even come up with the idea of an afterlife yet?)

Gateway to the heavens, more like.. to be closer to/waiting for their God to return, as are many of the ancient sites around the world.

Angkor Wat is breathtakingly beautiful in appearance..

Yeah and it also seems quite similar to how the Egyptians wanted to join their gods in the sky (I mean literally, by flying to the sky). Maybe this whole idea started with the Göbekli Tepe culture.

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Sep 01, 2019 6:17 pm

MagsJ wrote: ↑Sun Sep 01, 2019 11:25 am

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Nov 19, 2018 12:32 pm What do you think was the purpose of this unbelievably old site?

Was it perhaps a gateway to the afterlife, or maybe something else entirely? (Perhaps they hadn't even come up with the idea of an afterlife yet?)

Gateway to the heavens, more like.. to be closer to/waiting for their God to return, as are many of the ancient sites around the world.

Angkor Wat is breathtakingly beautiful in appearance..

Yeah and it also seems quite similar to how the Egyptians wanted to join their gods in the sky (I mean literally, by flying to the sky). Maybe this whole idea started with the Göbekli Tepe culture.

Are you even capable of considering that "this whole idea" started before just 12,000 years?

The 'first humans', which, by the way, were around many years before just the relatively very short 12,000 years ago that you say, could have had similar or even far more advanced ideas than the peoples of those times.

All you are basing all your own theories and ideas off of is human made structures.

If you are not yet aware, human beings were thinking before 12,000 years ago. And, some of this thinking could have been around "this whole idea", which you speak of here.

Human beings could have been having roughly the same ideas/thoughts tens or even hundreds of thousands of years BEFORE your little theory suggests.

Contrary to your own belief and theory there is evidence and proof that human beings were thinking and sharing ideas WELL BEFORE 12,000 years ago.

So, again WHY do you say the "first humans" were only 12,000 years ago?

Also, what you call a "considerably old site" is not really that old at all, considering there are other human made sites up to 50,000 years prior to your 'considerably young site' of only 12,000 years ago.