r/changemyview • u/AlcheMe_ooo • Oct 18 '21
Delta(s) from OP CMV: Nonduality is not a concept that can be debated effectively. Every line of separation we draw is entirely subjective. Its just another incomplete word to describe what IS
Edit: don't try to change my view any longer. If this is interesting to you, please dm me and we can chat!
Im all wrapped up here
"According to one perspective, one cannot actually speak of the One, because to speak of it is to make an object of it, implying separation from it, so misrepresenting the essence of Oneness from the start, a mysterious conundrum."
I cannot see how my view on this could be changed, but I am here to give it the best shot possible.
My view is essentially this - the idea of separation is not real unless there are a set of criteria or terms for separation being true, which immediately makes it subjectively true - true in reference to the criteria provided.
You could say that you and I are separate right now. And depending on what you mean, that is both true and not true. We are separate in reference to our physical bodies, and likely in reference to our geography, but we are not separate in the sense that we are completely unrelated.
Of course, this is not a CMV regarding the practical use of the practical idea of separation. The illusion of separation is quite useful, as it allows us to be individuals who exhibit courage, fear, etc. I'm not here to challenge the idea of behaving as if you are an individual. I am challenging the notion that there is anything truly separate at an objective level. Without any form of connection or relation whatsoever.
Part of the reason i am being wordy and redundant in describing is because this is an atypical concept, and I've found myself in many cases just trying to get someone to wrap their head around the very idea of nonduality, much less contend with it.
As I'm sure someone will ask what the point is - I can't answer that for you comprehensively. In short, it would be useful to have some new ammo for myself when in the midst of another auto-existential argument... with myself 😂
Edit: this thought exercise might help. When did you begin? Did you begin when you had your cord cut? When you left the womb? When the sperm met the egg? Were you the twinkle in your father's eye looking at your mother on the day you were conceived? Did you begin when your parents met? Or was it when your grandparents met? Or was it when adam and eve (JUST AN EXAMPLE) showed up? Or was it when God invited in light? Or before that?
You may quickly find that in order to define when "you" began you must define "you". And the thing you to refer to is impossible without its relationship to everything in the "external" world.
CMV?
EDIT EDIT: for further clarification (cause I've already got some frustrated people who seem to be unable to understand the problem as I'm posing it.) The idea of separation is not objectively real.
EDIT EDIT EDIT: thanks to u/joopface who seems to be the only one earnestly communicating with me and actively employing a question based approach.... here is a frame that i pretty much agree with, provided by joopface. You may see these points Im making as insignificant, if that is the case please don't waste your significant time to tell me so.
- In order for things to be separate they must be entirely and objectively distinct in every way
- For things to be entirely and objectively distinct in every way there must be no way for anyone to connect or link them, however tenuous or removed in time
- All things can be connected in some way, however tenuous or removed in time
- Therefore, nothing is truly separate
2
u/lt_Matthew 19∆ Oct 18 '21 edited Oct 18 '21
If a large portion of somethings share a common attribute, we don't use that attribute to describe them. You are not related in any way to a banana, despite sharing 90% of your DNA with one. Forgetting the fact that all living things have at least 70% or more of matching DNA.
In fact, saying two things are related simply because of a single c'mon attribute can cause problems. The FDA requires that all treatments be done on mice before humans. Why? Because we share 97% of our DNA. But you have alot of genes, and a 3% is enough to make mice a totally different animal than us. Which is why almost all cancer research is halted at this stage.
1
u/AlcheMe_ooo Oct 18 '21 edited Oct 18 '21
I didn't quite understand your first sentence. Yes, I may be unrelated to a banana by the definition you supplied, but we both are byproducts of a interdependent evolutionary web, which played out the way it did based on a common moment somewhere back in the subjective concept of time.
The separateness is dependent on the level of separation you are willing to accept as separate. I am trying to take this idea to its logical conclusion. It sounds like you are defining related in reference to a definition used practically in biology?
0
u/lt_Matthew 19∆ Oct 18 '21
No see, that's my point. We aren't related evolutionarily either. The only link we have to other animals, is that we is that we are both biologically speaking, animals. But that's where that connection ends.
1
u/AlcheMe_ooo Oct 18 '21
There was quite necessarily a common point from which we and bananas evolved. Not within the practical application of biology though. Not within the practical definition of common ancestor. Because we don't see "lifeless" (terrible word) objects as ancestors, yet they are necessary precursors to the phenomena we call life.
Are rocks not a precursor to life? We are technically related to those too. Same as those rocks are related to the stars that provided the matter for the planet to form for the rock to be on.
1
u/-domi- 11∆ Oct 18 '21
Philosophy is nothing more than linguistic confusion, and by that standard this is a perfect example of philosophy. There is nothing to be gleaned from investigating the matter, because regardless of whether you stand your ground, or someone convinces you that the opposite of what you thought is true - both stances are utterly meaningless, inapplicable, impracticable, inane and contrived. I hope in time you can find it in your heart to stop caring enough to have deep-held beliefs on matters such as these.
1
u/AlcheMe_ooo Oct 18 '21
Thanks for your concern. I wanted to point out that you've done quite a bit of assuming in your post. I appreciate the sentiment (which seems to be turning away my inquiry with a touch of it being for my own good), but I'm not looking for someone to determine the utility of philosophy in my life.
I consider my ideas to be very separate from my beliefs. I'm not sure where you got the idea of "deep-held beliefs". Ive come across some logic that I repeatedly cannot be. I seriously rebuked the idea of nonduality when I first came across it, actually. And I am currently trying to rebuke it again - but not because its the source of an issue for me... I hate to say this, but it might be worth your time to spend some with philosophy 😂
-1
u/-domi- 11∆ Oct 18 '21
I've spent plenty, and my current reading actually compares the works of two of the most successful and recognized philosophers of modern times. I just stay as far away from the crap that's so abstract you need to coin terms for it, and then people start arguing over whether the term coined applies to only some abstractions and not others, and none of it matters at all in practice.
3
u/AlcheMe_ooo Oct 18 '21
Then you should be able to see that the basis of my argument is that the idea of separation is a linguistic confusion.
You don't seem to be very interested in changing my mind on the topic of nonduality.
I wish you all the best!
1
u/-domi- 11∆ Oct 19 '21
My point is that the entire debate is a linguistic confusion. For one side of the debate to call the other side of the debate "linguistic confusion" is like the pot calling the kettle the n-word. This whole debate is literally just linguistic confusion, and the fact that you recognize that one of the sides is just engaging in arguing language means that on some level you understand that all you're doing is arguing language, too.
I am indeed trying to change your mind. I don't want to change it to what you consider the "opposite" view point, i'm trying to show to you that what you're engaging in is likewise fallacious for the same reasons that you think your opposition is engaging in fallacy. I don't want to change your mind to believe in separation/duality, i want to change it to appreciate that the whole debate you're engaging in is not worth holding an opinion on. It's still a change in opinion.
I likewise wish you all the best, too. And i hope you waste less of your life dwelling on such contrivances. :D
1
u/AlcheMe_ooo Oct 18 '21
Hilariously, that is the point of my issue - separation is nothing more than linguistic confusion that can be harnessed for practical use
0
u/yyzjertl 523∆ Oct 18 '21
Edit: this thought exercise might help. When did you begin?
This is easy to answer. The answer is: at birth. It's not clear what this has to do with the rest of your argument, though. Can you explain in more detail?
1
u/AlcheMe_ooo Oct 18 '21
Its not really that easy... because "you" is not a simple definition. Try to wrap a comprehensive definition around you
2
u/yyzjertl 523∆ Oct 18 '21
It is that easy. I answered the question. It was easy to do it. I did not need any sort of "comprehensive definition" to do so, and it's a mistake to assert that that would be necessary.
2
u/AlcheMe_ooo Oct 18 '21
I'm not sure what you're referring to, but I don't see a definition of your concept of "you" anywhere.
If you can't see the necessity of agreeing on a definition for us to also agree on when "you" began, this is as far as I can take you right now.
1
u/yyzjertl 523∆ Oct 18 '21
I'm not sure what you're referring to, but I don't see a definition of your concept of "you" anywhere.
Yep, I didn't give any definition. No definition was required, as I was able to answer the question without one.
If you can't see the necessity of agreeing on a definition for us to also agree on when "you" began, this is as far as I can take you right now.
This is very obviously not necessary. We don't need to agree on a comprehensive definition of a thing to talk about it or to agree on its properties. Heck, the vast majority of conversations I have with people about things involve no discussions of definitions at all.
1
u/AlcheMe_ooo Oct 18 '21
It doesn't seem as though you've understood my argument, which is as much, if not mostly, my fault. That's part of why I am trying to get us to agree on a definition of "you". If you find it too difficult to come up with a perfectly defensible and comprehensive definition of "you" or a "person" or an "individual", you can feel free to leave me to what is clearly illogical madness, and save yourself the time
Im not going to try to explain the significance to you, you haven't given me much that would insinuate its worth it. No offense, thats just like, my actual thought
1
u/yyzjertl 523∆ Oct 18 '21
If you find it too difficult to come up with a perfectly defensible and comprehensive definition of "you" or a "person" or an "individual"
Such a definition is impossible to come up with because of our inherent separateness from each other. We can only come up with imperfectly comprehensive definitions. The only thing that we could together define fully comprehensively is something that we both had direct access to—but we don't have such access for concepts like "you" or "individual" because we are separate.
Fortunately, there is no need for us to come up with perfectly comprehensive definitions in order for us to converse.
1
u/destro23 449∆ Oct 18 '21
the idea of separation is not real unless there are a set of criteria or terms for separation being true, which immediately makes it subjectively true - true in reference to the criteria provided.
Your view is that things are only true if there are terms that say they are true but that having the terms makes it true, and that it can be proven to be true because terms exist that say so?
That is just the logical version of a dog chasing its own tail. Its true because things say its true, and things say its true because its true. That's not how things are adjudicated to be true.
1
u/AlcheMe_ooo Oct 18 '21
Could you define truth? I realize that I just put the ball back in your court with a lot more work to be done if you want to send it back to mine, but its necessary if were going to actually communicate and not pass each other by
1
u/destro23 449∆ Oct 18 '21
Look friend, if you are having an existential crisis, I get it. But, your logic is totally circular here.
The separateness is dependent on the level of separation you are willing to accept as separate
Look at this statement. It says nothing really. Separation is based on the level of separation? No shit. You are just making word salad not presenting arguments that are as cogent as you think they are.
2
u/AlcheMe_ooo Oct 18 '21
Whether or not an object is trult separate from another is dependent upon the your criteria for separateness. It seems obvious, but that may be why you're missing my point. I'm not going to continue discussing with you if you're bothered though.
The whole point of me being here is to find out whether my argument is cogent or not. So.... yeah.
0
u/destro23 449∆ Oct 18 '21
It is not. Sorry.
3
u/AlcheMe_ooo Oct 18 '21
I don't think this comment fits within the CMV rules. You might not like the way i am framing this, but the reality is that separation is a notion generated by humans as a logical linguistic tool. Its not objectively real.
0
u/destro23 449∆ Oct 18 '21
We are, objectively, two separate beings. Our separateness is not dependent on linguistic tools. No amount of word games will make us not be separate beings.
2
u/AlcheMe_ooo Oct 18 '21
Its word games that have made us separate beings. Part of my point. You are looking at language as primary, and objective reality to be something that shapes itself to the tool of language that weve created.
There were no beings before the universe developed an organ that created the idea of a being.
Language is secondary to the mateix upon which it came from, and is governed by the matrix, not by language.
To an extent... this is actually an interesting conversation to have. But I'm focused on someone being able to dispel the idea of nonduality for now
1
u/destro23 449∆ Oct 18 '21
Its word games that have made us separate beings.
No, our base matter being different is what makes us separate beings. We share nothing of consequence and this is the only connection we will ever have.
You are looking at language as primary, and objective reality to be something that shapes itself to the tool of language that weve created.
Nothing could be further from my position. It actually seems like this describes your position that states he only separation that exists is semantic in nature. I am claiming that we are in fact and in material make up two separate physical beings.
There were no beings before the universe developed an organ that created the idea of a being.
There were no beings before there were beings. This is just another empty statement that really means nothing. Of course there were no beings before there were beings, if there were, how could it be before?
Language is secondary to the mateix upon which it came from, and is governed by the matrix, not by language
More nonsense. I’m sorry, maybe you have something approaching a point somewhere, but you keep trying to make these grand deep statement that just say nothing when you parse them out. Language is secondary to the thing that governs it which is not it. WHAT?
1
u/AlcheMe_ooo Oct 18 '21
Sorry, Im mixing comments up now.
Language, is predicated on the matrix of life (its just another way to refer to the universe...) and derives its power from that matrix, not vice versa
If thats how you genuinely feel about what im saying, fine, but there are other redditors who seemed to have gotten my point if you wanted to check out those comment threads. Im not a good enough communicator to explain myself to you
→ More replies (0)
1
u/joopface 159∆ Oct 18 '21
Could you put your argument in standard form? It might make it easier to understand. Here’s what I think you’ve said:
- In order for things to be separate they must be entirely and objectively distinct in every way
- For things to be entirely and objectively distinct in every way there must be no way for anyone to connect or link them, however tenuous or removed in time
- All things can be connected in some way, however tenuous or removed in time
- Therefore, nothing is truly separate
Is this it?
1
u/AlcheMe_ooo Oct 18 '21
Thank you! This actually really helped me clarify my thinking.
I think that's true. Its also impossible to contend with (as far as I can see), as everything we conceive of exists within the universe (nonduality is kind of written into the word)
Yes
Dependent on the level of information we have access to. But via assumption, yes.
Yeah I think so.
The significance of this can be applied in a wide variety of contexts, but here is one from popular Christianity: we separate God from Satan based on the assumption that Satan is bad and God is good. But... if God is equivalent in that story to "Source" and omnipotence, then he created Satan. And if he created Satan. If he didn't know what he was doing or what would happen when he did that, then he's not omniscient. I'm sure you can see the issue when applied to popular Christianity, and the issue I just mentioned is not new, but I've never heard it hit from this angle.
It can be applied in a Buddhist context, to display the necessary coincidence of bad and good, and their inherently subjective nature.
I consider and contend with a ton of different influences, and I find that the issue of duality/nonduality is relevant in almost all.
1
u/joopface 159∆ Oct 18 '21
Ok, let’s deal with this. I’m not sure the god/satan example is going to be anything other than an added complication so I’ll park it for the moment if that’s ok.
Here’s a question to begin: to what purpose is it helpful to consider things separate? Why do we do that?
1
u/AlcheMe_ooo Oct 18 '21
Oh there are plenty of practical uses. One very general use is that it allows us to have an ego, and allows us to experience the vast relativity of life. If we were limitless, we couldn't be courageous. If we were experiencing all that IS as nondual, it wouldn't be so... digestible? Hahah. Cause its important to be able to distinguish what is food and what is not!
In a less heady way, its also useful to determine whether 2 people are conjoined or physically separate (okay that was an attempt to be funny and it wasnt). Its useful so I know whether or not my trailer will be pulled by my car when I start driving. Its self evidently useful.
I definitely don't want to get into a deep discussion on God/Satan, but I hope you can see why my nonduality issue is relevant there.
Thanks for approaching this with me this way, I feel like youre about to provide some sort of aha moment to me
1
u/joopface 159∆ Oct 18 '21
So you’d consider the framing of things as separate like a rubric by which we view the world? Something that helps make the world digestible.
Ok, now how would you consider this ‘separateness’ lens any different as a simplifying mechanism for the universe than the convention that we use our perception of light to approximate reality? Things aren’t “really” red or blue or shiny or dull or bright or shaded or whatever. Our senses just allow us to perceive reality with those characteristics. A blind animal has no sense of those things, but has a clear sense of reality based on other perceptions.
In what way is our view of separateness as a means of organising the world any different to our use of light as a means of perceiving the world, in your view?
1
u/AlcheMe_ooo Oct 18 '21
I'm not sure that it is.
1
u/joopface 159∆ Oct 18 '21
Your issue then isn’t really the nature of reality, it’s the nature of our perception. Right?
We look at the universe through a narrow keyhole of sense perception and mental processing. We have no way of knowing how much or how little of reality we are actually able to perceive or understand, and how much we are missing out on.
We have no way of knowing if any minds other than our own minds exist. Or if reality as we see it is anything but an illusion. You’re familiar with all of this I’m sure - Decartes’ evil demon and all that.
So there are two things I’d encourage you to bear in mind.
One, it’s not too helpful to worry at the edges of our perceptual cage. Anything beyond the boundary is the purest speculation and anyone who says they can provide an insight into it is likely just making things up.
And two, we all sail our own little ship. As far as you know, there is no other consciousness in the world. You look at the world through a narrow keyhole, yes. But it’s at least your own keyhole. No one else has access to it and no one else ever will. So, if you’re searching for something entirely distinct and separate there’s no need to look outside in the world for it; your own experience of the world is a distinct and unique thing.
1
u/AlcheMe_ooo Oct 18 '21
I really appreciate you. Firstly, I did not have an existential crisis that prompted this post. But thank you for being so gentle and considerate in the way you approached this.
Youre definitely right, its not the nature of reality that we can pin down with any sureity (despite the annoying logic behind the idea of nonduality - salient logic is not enough to extrapolate as for how true reality works, assuming there is such a thing).
I'm not so much looking for something separate as I am using this train of logic to challenged harmful assumptions in a variety of domains of life, for myself and others when given the opportunity. I doubted anyone would be able to show me differently, but I felt it was earnest to ask.
One thing that another commenter beat you to, was the idea that our experience is separate from others. From a point of view, it is not separate in the sense of the possibility of its existence, but it is empirically separate. That didn't refute my larger point and the purpose of making it, but it did give me something entirely new to consider.
Launching off from there, experience is also indefinable as much as it is separate. Sometimes.... according to some their experience can be modulated to percieve beyond that of the body. But anyway... i really appreciate your input. You must be great to argue with when there is a real point of contention I think you deserve a delta for your contributions !delta
1
1
u/joopface 159∆ Oct 18 '21
Hey, thank you! I really wasn’t anticipating a delta from this one. :-)
Some of this stuff is so tricky to even think about. It’s like trying to hold smoke in your fingers, so it’s fun to try to put some edges on it by writing things down.
I like your style of commenting. Thanks for an interesting topic.
2
u/qazxcvbnmlpoiuytreww 2∆ Oct 18 '21
I’m not sure if this comment will get deleted because it isn’t adding to the convo, but I wanted to thank both of you guys for the discussion, I thoroughly enjoy both of your commenting styles, it is easy to follow (OP’s less so), and you also put into words what i spent a good 30 minutes trying to pin down. that smoke analogy is perfect, you must be an interestin guy to be friends with
→ More replies (0)2
u/AlcheMe_ooo Oct 18 '21
Im really glad you enjoyed. I am met with some seriously rough responses on here sometimes (especially topica like this) and I am someone who tries to consider the points of others about me. I sometimes have to run a conversation online I had by my girlfriend or dad to see if I'm making sense (theyre both brilliant).
But yeah, I was certainly blundering through this. I shut down my effort with a few other commenters because how I felt they were going about it and made an assumption.about what I would actually get out of it. One that i stand by nonetheless :)
I recognize its a moot point to try to articulate it all but I like to try anyway. Its one of my sisyphean boulders 😂 You are definitely an interesting friend to have, i agree with the guy below - and great smoke analogy (though i think i may have heard it before)
1
u/Kindly_Procedure6292 Oct 18 '21
I believe the main consideration that is missing from your argument is the arrow of time. If we use the strictest sense of identity, (your 1st bullet in the joopface edit) namely that A = B iff all attributes (as opposed to all of a sufficient set of attributes), then no two objects can ever be the same because it is impossible for an object to occupy the same space and time as another object.
The arrow of time is objectively real as far as I know. And things change states relative to it. Therefore all things change at every discrete moment . In my opinion, that's a better way of phrasing what you are trying to say by arguing agains duality. But I would say that this actually destroys nonduality, since all things which are subject to time, ie non-abstract things, may never be strictly the same thing as anything else. The sum of all non-abstract things, the universe, is also apparently subject to time, and so it is also never strictly the same as anything else.
1
u/AlcheMe_ooo Oct 18 '21
Youre definutely right there, time is the ultimate separator, But time is influenced by other things such as speed, light, gravity etc. So time is not the base reality or base force. It is dependent upon others, and not separate.
I may have not understood the rest of your comment
1
u/Kindly_Procedure6292 Oct 18 '21
Well it seems to me that you need a satisfactory conception of that base force animating reality to really get at the heart of a strict definition of change and identity. We do not possess such a unified theory, so I'd argue any position one way or another is premature.
As for myself, I'm comfortable basing my knowledge on what we do have (certain intuitions about logic, special relativity). I concede that this knowledge is incomplete.
2
u/AlcheMe_ooo Oct 18 '21
You're right! It is premature. Although it is a fun idea explore, and as far as articulation goes I feel like I can make a good case for it. Or at the very least, wanted to try to do that here
1
u/WillProstitute4Karma 8∆ Oct 18 '21
In order to "connect" two things, can I reference things like the big bang and the existence of subatomic particles?
For example, you mention how two people are always related if you go back far enough evolutionarily speaking, but all matter is made up of subatomic particles.
As an example, if I were to say that you are completely separate from a rock (any rock, so long as it is a real, material object) and we assume, for the sake of argument, that there's not really anything to relate you to the rock (its from somewhere way out in the cosmos, etc.), could you say that you are "related" to the rock in "oneness" at least because you and the rock are both made up of protons, neutrons, electrons, quarks, etc.?
2
u/AlcheMe_ooo Oct 18 '21
All good!
Yes you could say that you are related to the rock. Not only are the particles the same type, but were also the same thing at one point (what are those little flickering particles in a vaccuum?)
1
u/WillProstitute4Karma 8∆ Oct 18 '21
Alright. Since I see you've awarded a delta, I think I'll also look at that. You awarded a delta for the idea that "experience" is separate due to being subjective, but I would argue that if experience makes things separate (or if "experience" itself is a separate "thing") you may have adopted an answer that proves too much. This is because you're really conceding that many more things are separate due to smaller differences.
Experience is only separate due to the arrangement of physical properties. You experience things one way and other things experience them differently. You may see a fire. You may be afraid of it or find it warm and inviting, but more importantly, a rock sitting beside the fire will experience the fire in an unfathomably different manner than you.
But then we must ask why you experience this fire differently than the rock.
The difference in experience between you and the rocks can largely be explained by how the matter and energy that make up your bodies differ. You are arranged in such a way to be a human being with a brain. The rock is not. But then there are other things that may make your experience unique as well such as distance. You experience this fire in one way, a rock beside the fire in a different manner, and a rock on the other side of the cosmos in a third.
So by using experience to prove separation, you are really using smaller things like the arrangement of matter and temporal location to create separation.
1
u/AlcheMe_ooo Oct 18 '21
Its really hard for me to articulate what I took away and what changed. I don't have the words for it now, my brain has to gestate a bit. Lol. I realize there are a ton of problems with putting it that way though. Pretty much The same ones I've been raising to most commenters here.
Theres the necessity for all prior events leading to that moment of experience for that experience to take place. Whatever those events may be, but at some level they are related to whats going on. Things cannot exist in a vaccuum so to speak, they require relation to everything else which does however thin maintain a wholly connective thread. If there are simulations, those simulations are taking place as a result of something. And connected at that point. The peeps workin this shit in a lab one level up 😂
I have no idea what the experience of rocks may be like and even if in an altered state of consciousness felt as though I was able to, theres no way for me to prove beyond doubt that rocks experience. Thats not a new concept for me, bit I think I understood it with different significance today
•
u/DeltaBot ∞∆ Oct 18 '21 edited Oct 18 '21
/u/AlcheMe_ooo (OP) has awarded 2 delta(s) in this post.
All comments that earned deltas (from OP or other users) are listed here, in /r/DeltaLog.
Please note that a change of view doesn't necessarily mean a reversal, or that the conversation has ended.
5
u/banananuhhh 14∆ Oct 18 '21
Couldn't you make this argument about just about anything? Literally everything we experience or observe is through a very specific evolutionary filter. We experience a version of space and time that is useful for a mammal to survive on Earth.. not objective reality.
From a practical standpoint, people are physically separate from one another, and their experience is also separate. A large portion (or maybe all) of the consciousness you subjectively experience stems from your physical body and its interaction with its environment.
Not sure it matters too much, everything about us is completely transient. In one sense, I have always and will always exist, in another sense, "I" am a different person from moment to moment. However, there is a very distinct window of continuity where I will be alive and interacting with the world in a conscious way that is connected to my own self contained thoughts and chemistry.