What is the strongest argument against Bernardo's monistic idealism and/or non-duality?

[AshvinP]

I don't think there are any good arguments against the monistic part of the idealism, so it's hard to say what is the "strongest" out of equally terrible options. Of his idealism in general, I would say philosophical arguments which attribute meta-cognition to MAL, such as various panentheistic ones.

A very strong argument against both monism and dualism as genuinely meaningful questions instead of superficial language games, is that both presuppose God of Number theory. Existential quantification as such is already a metaphysical postulate. Even though the formulation of Principle of Parsimony also presupposes the metaphysical postulate of quantification, a general interpretation of parsimony requires to drop quantification as ontological axiom, if better options are available and axiomatic quantification is not necessary.

And better option has been found.

So you are claiming "monism" always presupposes "existential quantification" and therefore cannot be used to describe a fundamentally qualitative process understanding of Reality? What is the better term to use which still maintains a unified, contiguous field-process of qualitative being-becoming?

[Brad Walker]

Against BK's published idealism variant, cosmic fine-tuning and inexplicable disassociation.

[SanteriSatama]

I concur that to make a strong argument against nonduality, one has to make a strong case that Reality is essentially based on there being at least two fundamentally and categorically different ontological primitives, which is inherently less parsimonious, notwithstanding the point that the nondual primitive expresses as multitudinous phenomenal polarities. As for making a strong case against the primacy of consciousness, one must make a strong case for how consciousness arises from a non-conscious primitive. I know of no such case.

Depends on the type of nonduality:

From wiki:

Advaita Vedānta posits a substance ontology, an ontology which holds that underlying the change and impermanence of empirical reality is an unchanging and permanent absolute reality, like an eternal substance it calls Atman-Brahman.

(...)

In contrast, Buddhism posits a process ontology, also called as "event ontology".[531][530] According to the Buddhist thought, particularly after the rise of ancient Mahayana Buddhism scholarship, there is neither empirical nor absolute permanent reality and ontology can be explained as a process.

[SanteriSatama]

What is the better term to use which still maintains a unified, contiguous field-process of qualitative being-becoming?

There's no need for a single term, continuity can and needs to be spoken many ways. A term I do like and use quite often is Bohm's 'holomovement'.

[AshvinP]

What is the better term to use which still maintains a unified, contiguous field-process of qualitative being-becoming?

There's no need for a single term, continuity can and needs to be spoken many ways. A term I do like and use quite often is Bohm's 'holomovement'.

The thing is, if we want to convey to the average person what it means to be a metaphysical idealist, someone who is a bit familiar with philosophy but not much, terms like "monism" come in handy. It's conscious activity and only conscious activity - one 'thing', one process. A lot of great idealist philosophers have employed that term.

But I assume your criticism was not simply about the term, but how BK conceives of his idealism as involving substance rather than process?

[Soul_of_Shu]

I'm not seeing that BK in positing Consciousness as inextricable from Will is in any way precluding the apparency of process.

[PHIbonacci]

Against BK's published idealism variant, cosmic fine-tuning.

Care to elaborate, please?

[SanteriSatama]

The thing is, if we want to convey to the average person what it means to be a metaphysical idealist, someone who is a bit familiar with philosophy but not much, terms like "monism" come in handy.

The thing is, we are not preaching to the masses here or trying to convince a jury. We are discussing here idealism and related philosophy and spirituality as well as we can.

It's conscious activity and only conscious activity - one 'thing', one process. A lot of great idealist philosophers have employed that term.

We've all done and said stuff the turns out to be dumb in retrospect.

But I assume your criticism was not simply about the term, but how BK conceives of his idealism as involving substance rather than process?

BK has not really addressed the question between substance and process, AFAIK. So far his presentation has been substance oriented, but as I said that can be a rhetorical choice instead of strong opinion in favor of Vedanta and against Mahayana, if the substance and process schools of non-dualism can be abstracted by those examples. To simplify, according to substance school Not-two = One, according to process school Not-two =/= One. .

[AshvinP]

The thing is, if we want to convey to the average person what it means to be a metaphysical idealist, someone who is a bit familiar with philosophy but not much, terms like "monism" come in handy.

The thing is, we are not preaching to the masses here or trying to convince a jury. We are discussing here idealism and related philosophy and spirituality as well as we can.

But the thing is, you are not. If you clarified that you had a substantive issue with BK's "monism", then you would be. But apparently your response to my original comment was only about the word "monism". Which, like you say, does not have to be taken as anything more than a "rhetorical choice", thereby avoiding random arguments unrelated to the original post and response.

[SanteriSatama]

But the thing is, you are not.

Has anybody ever told you that talking with a lawyer, the way lawyers tend to talk by their profession, is often a huge energy drain and no fun?

If you clarified that you had a substantive issue with BK's "monism", then you would be. But apparently your response to my original comment was only about the word "monism". Which, like you say, does not have to be taken as anything more than a "rhetorical choice", thereby avoiding random arguments unrelated to the original post and response.

OK.

However, the comment and exchange was useful to me, as it inspired me to look closer at different versions of non-dualism, and the wiki quote confirmed by vague impression that Vedanta approach is substance oriented and Mahayana process philosophical. Which was the "strongest" argument could think of. On the level of discussing with text, not the author presumed behind the text. Barthes' "Death of the Author" is an ethical and pragmatic school of hermeneutics, as ad hominem arguments, whether positive or negative, are not very supportive of constructive reading and textual criticism.