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

[SanteriSatama]

Santeri ... What 'substance' are you referring to?

The concept of substance, not any specific value given to that variable in this case.

I consider idealism primarily a methodological choice, because it's much less limiting than materialism. And materialists make their methodological choice for the same reason in inverse, they want the limiting aspect. The technologial teleology of mechanical repeatability requires the limiting aspect. In the holistic look, our ability to build machines and mechanize functions, is of course part of mental causation.

BTW, do you ever wonder how and why push out mineral goo out of our earlobes? Not the vax stuff in the ear channel, the lobe stuff that I just scratched plenty under my nail.

[Soul_of_Shu]

The concept of substance, not any specific value given to that variable in this case.

A concept/idea that as far a I can tell is not comprised of any substance.

[Lou Gold]

Santeri,

PS: a comment on terminology. A codependent relation does not mean dualism. It means relation.

Intuitively, I have always grokked and experienced Mitakuye Oyasin (All My Relations) as expressing both self and no-self. My sense of otherness co-arises with a sense of no-other. My sense of duality co-arises with a sense of non-duality. Somehow, this seems obvious to me.

In terms of the image, the people standing in line for the ascent do not see the shadow created by the light, which is hovering over them. As an interesting experiment testing for ascent bias, folks might show this image to others asking, "What do you see?" How many mention the shadow? And, once the shadow is pointed out, how many can no longer see it? This is the alchemy of awareness.



The image is entitled "Sightseeing" and was created by Jaime Lluch who goes by elsilencio at Flickr.

[Lou Gold]

The concept of substance, not any specific value given to that variable in this case.

A concept/idea that as far a I can tell is not comprised of any substance.

Agreed. However, this does not deny that concepts/ideas function as substantial forces in our lives. Aho Mitakuye Oyasin

[Soul_of_Shu]

However, this does not deny that concepts/ideas function as substantial forces in our lives.

Welcome to idealism, which requires only one ontological prime ... an idea-manifesting Mind.

[SanteriSatama]

In terms of the image, the people standing in line for the ascent do not see the shadow created by the light, which is hovering over them. As an interesting experiment testing for ascent bias, folks might show this image to others asking, "What do you see?" How many mention the shadow? And, once the shadow is pointed out, how many can no longer see it? This is the alchemy of awareness.

Ah yes. After you asked me to look again, I did so only with minds eye, and started to associate the image/question with Plato's cave, wondering if the "message" was that only one can go visit the light at a time. And in my imperfect memory I wondered if and how shadow figured in that Platonic interpretation.

[Lou Gold]

However, this does not deny that concepts/ideas function as substantial forces in our lives.

Welcome to idealism, which requires only one ontological prime ... an idea-manifesting Mind.

An "idea-manifesting Mind" is a myth, just as BK points out in "More Than Allegory" that both dualism and non-dualism are myths. The rubber meets the road as believing in the truth of one or the other myth manifests substantial experiences in your life. I prefer non-dualism because it enlarges my palpable experience of the mysteriousness. I hold that God (M@L, Great Mysteriousness, Supreme Whatever) is instinctively creative and that this Will is fundamental to all that is.

[Soul_of_Shu]

An "idea-manifesting Mind" is a myth ...

What an curious notion, a myth that pops out of a myth, absent a Mind. We seem to have been reading different books

[Lou Gold]

In terms of the image, the people standing in line for the ascent do not see the shadow created by the light, which is hovering over them. As an interesting experiment testing for ascent bias, folks might show this image to others asking, "What do you see?" How many mention the shadow? And, once the shadow is pointed out, how many can no longer see it? This is the alchemy of awareness.

Ah yes. After you asked me to look again, I did so only with minds eye, and started to associate the image/question with Plato's cave, wondering if the "message" was that only one can go visit the light at a time. And in my imperfect memory I wondered if and how shadow figured in that Platonic interpretation.

The image is brilliant. There's even a true and a false shadow in it.

[Soul_of_Shu]

What are we to make of the one possibly staring at the shadows on the floor? Is a shadow 'false' due to being a function of reflected light?