What does nonduality actually imply?

[Peter Jones]

I would agree with you. Substance monism is a possible but not the only variant of non-dualism. Even within the Advaita tradition there is a non-monistic approach, which can be described as "not-two, not-one". Similar approach it taken in many Buddhist schools (Zen for example). Basically, this approach is mostly experiential and phenomenalistic, it finds both dualistic and monistic perception and interpretation of the world erroneous. In such approach the reality is ineffable and fits into neither monistic, not dualistic interpretation, both of which are considered to be quite primitive and inadequate cognitive schemes.

The meaning of 'not-two' is 'not-one'. This is why the phrase is used. It is used in case we confuse it with monism.

As you note ..'it finds both dualistic and monistic perception and interpretation of the world erroneous. '

The crucial issue for philosophy is that both dualism and monism fail under analysis. Thus it is quite easy to show that nondualism is the only philosophy that works. This would be why philosophers have spent two thousabnd years looking for another one.with no success.

[Soul_of_Shu]

Being of a mythopoetic disposition I prefer compound neologisms that describe a formlessness><form state ~ not arising from any prior state, but as the fundamental, uncaused, irreducible state ~ a not-two duet, such as emptifullness or Scott's mumorphism, keeping in mind that as Lao Tzu put it, "true words seem paradoxical", and whereby with the fusion the confusion ends.

[quant-um]

I also like the mobius strip analogy, whereby initially there can be the apparency of two sides, but further along in the process of investigation, reveals there to be only one side.

But even in this, "side" is just a concept...and would you consider the edges sides as well since they also have a dimension, and this becomes a three sided shape? What about the potentially infinite dimensions unseen by us of the mobius trip that we can't perceive because our vision is a tiny band on the spectrum of visibility we currently know of and our integrated awareness is limited to 3D? Do those have sides too that we are unable to count? What about when you zoom in to the mobius? Is it perfectly smooth or does that intense curve require infinitely small triangles to make it? How many sides do we perceive then?

[quant-um]

I would agree with you. Substance monism is a possible but not the only variant of non-dualism. Even within the Advaita tradition there is a non-monistic approach, which can be described as "not-two, not-one". Similar approach it taken in many Buddhist schools (Zen for example). Basically, this approach is mostly experiential and phenomenalistic, it finds both dualistic and monistic perception and interpretation of the world erroneous. In such approach the reality is ineffable and fits into neither monistic, not dualistic interpretation, both of which are considered to be quite primitive and inadequate cognitive schemes.

The meaning of 'not-two' is 'not-one'. This is why the phrase is used. It is used in case we confuse it with monism.

As you note ..'it finds both dualistic and monistic perception and interpretation of the world erroneous. '

The crucial issue for philosophy is that both dualism and monism fail under analysis. Thus it is quite easy to show that nondualism is the only philosophy that works. This would be why philosophers have spent two thousabnd years looking for another one.with no success.

But...what if we do have it right and we are just doubting based on confirmation bias built upon limiting beliefs of what we current accept as true. What if duality IS the truth and not an illusion and the illusion comes from doubt and limiting belief structures?

[quant-um]

Being of a mythopoetic disposition I prefer compound neologisms that describe a formlessness><form state ~ not arising from any prior state, but as the fundamental, uncaused, irreducible state ~ a not-two duet, such as emptifullness or Scott's mumorphism, keeping in mind that as Lao Tzu put it, "true words seem paradoxical", and whereby with the fusion the confusion ends.

I also held this stance once, but now my take it is that it still assumes something which we cannot prove. I really don't feel comfortable standing in uncertain certainty...I much prefer pure uncertainty. This doesn't mean I don't value pragmatism and choosing theories to live by that feel good and do good...it is just to say I don't want to take on an ontological belief I can't prove. If God is real, what if they don't even know...this seems highly likely tbh...or maybe pandeism is right and the creator became what it created...or maybe nihilism has it right and there is no purpose or reality besides that which we create and that which nature has evolved to be and like you say primacy comes down to a lack of causality. I don't think this is unprovable, but it also doesn't seem provable.

My personal take right now takes the pragmatism from pandeism and the ontology of prryhonism/skepticism. I also like the starseed/alien theory that we are actually divine ourself and being tested here as an "angel in training" kind of. Essentially the theory is that in order to "ascend" to higher dimensions of reality and escape the suffering experienced here, we must do the best we can in this life and based on our efforts we fall where we fall on the ladder of ascension. Some say we must take every incarnation form before we are able to oversee a planet/star system as an "angel" / alien in command, so you can empathize and know every experience. The theory also states that we might be at the leading edge of the universe with our core star being "God/Source" from all which came (not a personified being but basically just a star with insane consciousness. I have also heard that magnetism could be the substrate by which all matter (light manifested as the reality we see from Source) is put into motion and made into "life" and it is electromagnetism that is the reason for life...the dance of emptiness and fullness manifest in synergistic energy, creating sentience which then creates sapience. Imagine Source as this giant star that exploded at one point and created us all but only did so because it gained self awareness and as every sentient being does, it does something about that and tries to understand why and how self and what self can do...so the universe was born...no imagine a tetrahedron of universes, scaled infinitely into fractalization, creating dimensions for which we may travel and perceive. Scientists say that in every cell there is the complexity of a universe according to new imagine capabilities...perhaps the lower dimensions and "hells" are just what we're made of...I mean when we zoom in...things kinda look evil and demonic right? Imagine if we start as a virus and have to ascend to become Gods o.O

At the end of the day, maybe what is most important is that our belief system gives us hope, pragmatism, and virtue instead of the opposites...depression, fantasy, and sociopathy...which seems really easy to fall into and not even know it under the guise of "the right belief". How tragic would it be if nihilism were right and instead of feeling empowered and pragmatic that we have evolved as this...and amazed/in awe of us coming from evolution...but then feeling depressed about there not being more and let down that you were mislead by others...and that is your belief system...straight up depression resulting from a seeming betrayal of trust facilitated by the cycle of abused trust starting with the one who created the belief system from their ego and denial...but even then you can't blame them because they were just well articulated story tellers who thought they knew what was up and had to tell everyone...whoops...just created a TON of suffering despite trying to help...yoikes.

[Soul_of_Shu]

I also like the mobius strip analogy, whereby initially there can be the apparency of two sides, but further along in the process of investigation, reveals there to be only one side.

But even in this, "side" is just a concept...and would you consider the edges sides as well since they also have a dimension, and this becomes a three sided shape? What about the potentially infinite dimensions unseen by us of the mobius trip that we can't perceive because our vision is a tiny band on the spectrum of visibility we currently know of and our integrated awareness is limited to 3D? Do those have sides too that we are unable to count? What about when you zoom in to the mobius? Is it perfectly smooth or does that intense curve require infinitely small triangles to make it? How many sides do we perceive then?

quant-um ... Well, all such analogies are limited, and so best not extend them too far beyond the simple point they are intended to make, which in this case is that an apparency of two sides, upon deeper investigation, can turn out to go beyond mere apparency, ultimately arriving at the nondual realization.

[Peter Jones]

But...what if we do have it right and we are just doubting based on confirmation bias built upon limiting beliefs of what we current accept as true. What if duality IS the truth and not an illusion and the illusion comes from doubt and limiting belief structures?

tt is not about beliefs and what we accept or do not. It is about logic and reason. Duialism and monism fail under analysis and this is demonstrable. This is the reason why the philosophy department is unable to formulate a workable fundamental theory.

Thus if dualism is true it would follow that Reaity is paradoxical and philosophy is incomprehensible - just as dualists usually argue.

Nondualism is a difficult idea but in metaphysics it is a neutral theory which is a simple idea. All positive theores fail, being demonstrably absurd, and a nuetral theory does not fail.

It really is this simple. We have a choice between an incomprehensible metaphyscis or a neutral theory. No philosopher has ever proposed a third option.

I don't understand why this is not well known, at least among this community. .It is just a matter of logic.

[quant-um]

quant-um ... Well, all such analogies are limited, and so best not extend them too far beyond the simple point they are intended to make, which in this case is that an apparency of two sides, upon deeper investigation, can turn out to go beyond mere apparency, ultimately arriving at the nondual realization.

Yes I agree, the simple experience of nonduality. I was just going beyond current accepted definition of nonduality being instead reductionary but rather multiplying to infinity...instead of not two meaning one, it implies infinite possibility?

tt is not about beliefs and what we accept or do not. It is about logic and reason. Duialism and monism fail under analysis and this is demonstrable. This is the reason why the philosophy department is unable to formulate a workable fundamental theory.

Thus if dualism is true it would follow that Reality is paradoxical and philosophy is incomprehensible - just as dualists usually argue.

What if the only reason we seem to be able to disprove things is because we don't have all the info. It is easy to seem that something is disproven if it seems unprovable based on our current logic. What if that itself is a confirmation bias? What if science just exists to eventually prove itself all wrong and prove that we can't know truth because we just create it? How are we sure we have all of the logic and aspects to consider? So what I am getting at is...of course we fail at proving everything...how could we even with how limited capability we have?

[Peter Jones]

tt is not about beliefs and what we accept or do not. It is about logic and reason. Duialism and monism fail under analysis and this is demonstrable. This is the reason why the philosophy department is unable to formulate a workable fundamental theory.

Thus if dualism is true it would follow that Reality is paradoxical and philosophy is incomprehensible - just as dualists usually argue.

What if the only reason we seem to be able to disprove things is because we don't have all the info.

If we did not have the info we wouldn't be able to prove these things. But nearly all philosophers prove the absurdity of positive theories. It's what makes metaphysics a challenge. It is proved explicitly by Kant, Nagarjuna, Bradley and others, but we all discover it if we investigate philosophy. .

It is easy to seem that something is disproven if it seems unprovable based on our current logic. What if that itself is a confirmation bias? What if science just exists to eventually prove itself all wrong and prove that we can't know truth because we just create it? How are we sure we have all of the logic and aspects to consider? So what I am getting at is...of course we fail at proving everything...how could we even with how limited capability we have?

The results I have stated are demonstrable. There is no shortage of evidence or ambiguity. There is barely even any dispute. We might argue about interpretation, but the logic of the situation is clear.