Re: What is the strongest argument against Bernardo's monistic idealism and/or non-duality?
Posted: Mon Mar 08, 2021 7:44 pm
Sure, but people still pay us a solid chunk of change because we produce real insights into their situation and results for their lives. I can't imagine what a post-modern deconstructionist lawyer sounds like... if they exist, probably a combination of unintelligible jargon and "fun" whimsical aphorisms. You could be the first, a real unexplored niche market... I'll help you study for the BarSanteriSatama wrote: ↑Mon Mar 08, 2021 6:53 pmHas 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?
We all like to think we are simply "discussing the text", not bringing in any of our biases, judgments, motivations, etc., not presuming anything about the author, but obviously that's not how it really works. It's as true of me as it is of you. The key is to realize it rather than futilely attempt to avoid it. A lot of 'post-structural' linguistic philosophy ironically pretends it has transcended the need to account for the author behind every text, which is a mistake. Truly good literature opens a portal into the consciousness of the author, who, even if 'physically' dead, is very much alive in Memory.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.