Indian non-dualism is a reversion to the monistic one which has no distinctions… pre-discursive:
This is definitely to be contrasted with triunity, which is unity-in-distinction; it does not erase distinctions. Chaos or oblivion are not primary.
However, both abduct to that which is ontologically prior to discursive reasoning.
Any pushback on Indian non-dualism being monistic and incompatible with triunity-in-distinction?
I think triunity is two layers of dualistic thinking: first we divide the indivisible into three, then we bind them back together in dualistic fashion, we say that those three are one. It’s two steps in the wrong direction, personally I would advise against wasting one’s time coming up with triads that look nice, but don’t mean anything fundamentaly, but it’s also a philosophy that one can explore.
We can do any number, say a sextad philosopher could say to a pentad philosopher that his mind-body-self-soul-I unity is lacking the crucial sixth element, the spirit.
#thebestyoucando
If its distinct, then its not united.
Triunity is like saying original copy.
There’s nothing to unite if no distinction, and if there was no unity (all monism/one fragment, or all fragments), you couldn’t recognize distinction.
It’s original community — of which we are copies (poor ones, perhaps… pointing back to original perfection).
How many Nialls ya gonna be today?
Unity means the end of distinction.
Its a concept that describes distincton leading up to the point of unity, and loses it’s meaning afterwards.
Saying that there is no unity without distinction is like saying that there is no life without death. That does not mean that you gonna live on once you died.
What does unity mean without distinction? What does distinction mean without unity? It’s like eternity without time & vice versa. Nonsense is what it is… without sense!
If you resort to anything being a single foundation that scales you result in a non-dualism.
If everything is a single foundation of a trinity then that is non-dualism.
A single foundation across all things is a non-dualism.
They are not incompatible.
There is no paradigm which is subject to in distinction as the paradigm itself is a distinction by degree of what it is not that allows it to be as it is.
Non-dualism/monism is distinct from dualism and vice versa.
The only paradigm is the event of distinction.
Even then
Distinction is distinct from in distinction and yet in distinction is distinct from distinction thus subject to being a distinction.
Paradigm and absence of paradigm are subject to distinction thus even though distinct can occur as paradigmatic and non-paradigmatic it is not limited to either.
So even then the event distinction can be viewed as a paradigm and yet is not. There is no contradiction here as both paradigm and it’s absence are but contexts.
Which leads to the next point, non-dualism/monism and dualism are contexts. They are distinctions asserted by which other distinctions are both scaled from and measured in accords to applied reason.
In other words, non-dualism and dualism are not absolute except within context of application.
That will cut it for a short fundamental of metaphysics analysis and explanation.
I think you insist on calling it monism because it would be embarrassing for thousands of years of philosophers to admit they are wrong.
Yeah, I mean, what it basically sounds like is some state of inebriation where nothing is grasped anymore, no distinctions, just a fuzzy vapour of confusion.
I think one problem people have is that they think of logic as a two-diensional sheet. Triunity can be multidimensional. But even multiple dimensions are thought of as overlapping, as emanating from a two-dimensional point.
It’s not facets, it’s not dimenions, it’s not faces. Every member of the triunity is distinct. There is a relationship of logical necessity between them, which you have elaborated on at length. And this necessity can seem circular if it is not grasped that it is a unity.
Absolutely, I think this Hindu inebriation business has little or nothing to do with your work, or even with dimensions. I can’t gather that it actually means any reflection of dimensionality, so much as a state of active confusion where, along with anything else, dimensionality can no longer be grasped. Far cry from an ontological mapping of existence.
How’s it going, player.
A point is not two dimensional. If you take a simple “two” like being and non-being, you don’t get three from that. You already have being because you don’t have non-being. Being has to already be three. You don’t get that from two, so you sure as heck don’t get it from a point.
Three is enough to get everything else… just ask the primary colors.
Thousands of years of philosophers are not based around monism either.
There are thousands of years of everything in philosophy.
Apparently your history studies are the issue.
Quoting one word out of a whole text only reveals your reading aptitude.
Reducing everything to a single foundation of anything, triads in your case, is monism. It is just simple basic observation.
I wasn’t saying all philosophers, word magician.
If you want to get particular many monists would provide the same point as you, thousands of years of philosophers would get it wrong (lucretius, Aquinas, etc.).
Monism does not hold.
Neither does dualism/triads/quadrads/etc.
But at the end of the day.
Dualist, triadic, quadic, etc paradigms result in monism if they are foundational.
And the case is simple, everything is reduced to one foundation.
Don’t take your triad as some special case that I am after.