zurew

But you dont want to claim that its impossible, at best you can only say that given your priors its extremely improbable or unlikely to be the case. None of your thing is grounded in a non-conceptual sense , because you are making inferences about biology based on your and others experience but those inferences can be wrong. Your thing is subject to criticism just as much any other theory about biology. Even if you are realist about scientific laws, thats compatible with you having a wrong understanding about those laws

I dont think he is a realist about laws, but its more about having certain priors. When you are presented with a weird/unqiue relative proposition you dont evaluate it apriori, you include your baggage of priors (your beliefs about the world that you have abductive and inductive arguments for). Before evidence is considered, those relative claims will be evaluated/judged using your priors. Of course your priors should be adjusted once evidence is delivered and given this approach you should aways be open to change things no matter how outlandish or weird the claim is (but as you said, in most cases, epistemically you just cant meet the challenege and therefore you probably wont adjust those priors much. Its almost practically impossible for one person to construct those arguments and to collect enough evidence).

This is as low level engagement as someone saying that aiming for Nirvana is a bitch running away move, where you cant be bothered to actually help others using the wisdom you acquired/embody. Just take a look at most enlightened beings and you immediately realize that a good chunk of them are/were interested in helping others even though its all just Maya bro. You say that it makes sense for Buddha to teach, but given your logic it shouldnt make any sense to you , because why be bothered with reminding yourself about teachings if you could just leave any given time? Why not just dissolve and go for mahāsamādhi? Jesus also could have done that move , but he didnt, and we could include here a bunch of others here.

I agree with that. I would even say that they dont just expect it, but they are probably inclined to put pressure on the husband (if it is necessary) to play the masculine role.

I wouldnt say that they are more feminine though. Being a baby machine is one thing ,but if you take a look at their traits - they have a bunch of masculine traits as well. They have a lot of say in their relationship and they are ready to kick the husband's ass if the husband is bitching about things or if he doesn't act how she wants him to act. If you picture a typical russian woman in your head, then I doubt that you would picture a very submissive woman or I doubt that you would picture a woman who is any more submissive than any other western woman.

https://pastebin.com/ug0vH78L https://pastebin.com/JbrN02Kk

Will the episode involve you laying down what epistemic norms one should care about if one wants to be rational and laying down how that word meant something completely different than what it means nowadays? Because most "rational" people only care about not having contradictions, but you can add more epistemic norms like performative contradiction and more (for instance - when someone says "I dont exist" - thats not a logical contradiction , its just a false statement and you cant derive a logical contradiction where you show p and not p from that statement apriori, but it is a performative contradiction, because you can only utter that statement if you exist). The more epistemic norms you add to the "rational" stack the more you narrow down the space in which one can deny things.

Sounds like an accusation of derailing the thread, which is kind of fair, but the thread was dead silent. If someone is interested in others pov then they can still read the first 2 pages , but also - this discussion is still very related to the thread (imo).

What do you mean by "more fundamental" there?

You are also gesturing towards a new and different type of cognition that can process info and reason in completely alien ways , right?

No it doesnt necessarily imply that it makes decisions or that it has a teleology or that it is an individual - thats only true under certain specific versions of idealism, but bare idealism doesnt entail any of that. It doesnt even need to have a sense of self. Seem compatible with certain versions of idealism (depending on what certain terms that you use there mean - like depending on what is meant by limitless)

The goal isn't to replace spiritual work with talk and conceptualization. This is mostly an attempt from me to understand his view a little bit better.

I dont think it is misleading, because under how I interpret it, "mental" doesnt entail any clear limitation. I dont know though what you mean specifically by absence of limitations and how that is incompatible with bare Idealism (by bare, I mean only making the claim that everything is mental and not subjecting yourself to any specific version of Idealism - so not subjecting yourself to solipsism or to non-duality or to analytic idealism or to any other specific version of Idealism). I have more questions and issues, but lets go step by step.

He isn't just an academic, he is much more than that. You are framing this whole thing as if a good chunk of Vervaeke's work wouldn't go completely against most of academia's group think. You know that he is the dude who introduced multiple ways of knowing and that philosophy is much more than just conceptualizing about things, right?

Thats not what I meant by those terms. Given how you interpreted my question, it seems that there was 0 tracking between us. You are not really giving a direct answer to the metaphysics question - which is what is actually the nature of the ripples/fluctations/microvibrations. Im not asking a physics question there, because we can agree on all the physics and still disagree about metaphysics. It almost seems like you have a monistic model of reality where everything is created from a non-mental,non-physical 3rd category and everything can be reduced down to that 3rd category and that 3rd category is irreducible. But im not sure about any of this, because you selectively respond to things and its very hard to make any progress in understanding your view.

You cant have a metaphysically ambigous micro-vibration. What is that micro-vibration fundamentally, metaphysically? If that micro vibration is fundamentally not consciousness, then that micro-vibration wont have any possible connection with a reality where everything is fundamentally consciousness.

Your absence of limits talk is just a poetic way to express an infinite number of seperate realities. You have a reality where physicalism is true, you also have a completely seperate reality where everything is fundamentally consciousness, you have a seperate reality where everything is fundamentally something thats neither physical nor mental and so on. The "Everything is interconnected" doesnt work in your case. You have completely seperate realities, where there is no possible connection between them. You talk about absence of limits, but a reality where fundementally everything is physical that reality is limited to that metaphysics and there is no absence of limits there, the reality where everything is consciousness that reality is "limited" to that metaphysics and there isn't any absence of limits there in the sense that that reality cant be metaphysically anything other what it already is. So for example - what could possibly be the connection between a reality that is fundmentally physical and a reality that is fundamentally consciousness?

Dude wants you to watch porn, thats crazy work.

It doesnt have to be substance , monism is compatible with non-substance as well. It just says that there is one fundamental thing/essence or whatever other label you want to use there. The difference would be that under monism you can have an infinite number of Worlds/Universes that are all fundamentally united in one thing/essence, under your view though, there would be an infinite number of fundamentally separate realities, (you shouldnt even use the word 'reality', you should make it plural and call it realities), because there is no uniting factor between those realities at all, because they are fundamentally separate under your view.

That isnt an argument against monism, because even if your argument would go through (which doesn't) against idealism, that still wouldnt show that monism is false. Monism is comaptible with reality having one substance with infinite attributes. But you for some reason say that reality has infinite number of different substances. I dont think you realize how much work you would need to do to make an argument for your system Establish an argument that there are an infinite number of dimensions in reality (whatever you meant by dimension) After that, establish an argument that you cant have that many dimensions under monism (again - monsim is compatible with more than just idealism, so you would need to categorically rule out all monisms) After that categorically rule out all remaining non-pluralistic models of reality. And lastly, rule out all pluralistic models of reality that are incompatible with yours.

We do have an immortal vegan vampire though - Bryan Johnson.

That doesnt show that it is impossible, thats just a report about what isn't aligned with what makes sense to you. It is a move, where you ironically appeal to a limited human norm and not to an epistemic norm that isn't so constrained by the human perspective. Your own sense of rationality has almost nothing to do with whats possible. What is your argument for metaphysical pluralism and what is your argument against monism?

Whats impossible about it?

I dont know what any of that means. What does it mean for a definition to occur anywhere? I dont see how that is incompatible with non-duality. There it sounds like you are talking about epistemology - on how you come to know what the ultimate reality is or how you connect to it, but you dont say anything about ultimate reality that would be incompatible with non-duality (when it comes to metaphysics.)

Yeah you have a unqiue notion of logic and thats fine, just be aware that this is not how it is typically used. You didnt directly answer the questions I asked - If you are not sure what im trying to ask, then I will clarify, but you probably know what I mean by non-duality, so again - How is your view different from non-duality?