dyslexicFcuk

The Strict Rationalist's Justification for Nondualism & Philosophical Implications

27 posts in this topic

Preliminary:

I want to preface this by saying I have no intention of disrespecting the established decorum of abstaining from ideological debate. For the purpose of allowing a thorough analyses of nondualism, I do not believe the following pursuit of transcribing complicated nuances into simplistic facets to dissect as I will attempt, to be at all contrary to the overall goal of actualization, rather this should serve to reaffirm one's justification in personal investment towards such a contentious worldview through an intellectually rigorous approach. 

I respect the work Leo has done, and I am frequently using his knowledge to gain a better understanding of non-duality, however it seems that his communicative style lacks effectiveness towards rational minded people. Non-duality as described by Leo happens to correlate very well with some credible scientific/rationalist models of reality, and unfortunately if this correlation were not so, I can say certainly that someone like myself would have confidently dismissed teachings such as Leo's as religious nonsense, and for good reason as I see it, which is ironically rather sick. I also believe people with like-minded sensibilities to my own regarding rationality are best equipped to truly decipher reality, yet these sensibilities typically do not allow receptiveness to teachings such as nondualism as described by Leo. Therefore there needs to be a thorough accounting of any intelligible pieces of evidence pertaining to this worldview, and a careful dissection of what the evidence means so that people like myself can be reasonably convinced. 

This is 100% an attempt to conform nondualism with a rationalist's paradigm, despite Leo's assertion that such a thing is invalid. If multiple plateaus of understanding for this concept exist, I can credit my rationality for leading me as far as I am currently, and I see no reason to forego a rational process when trying to further decipher reality. If such an epiphany presents itself that rationality is in conflict with true understanding I will reconcile this appropriately, but for now I can only rely on the mechanisms of thought which I am familiar with.

What is Nondualism:

As I see it, Nondualism is the ontological position that reality is ultimately a unified whole, and a "spiritual" theory of undivided/shared consciousness. This worldview is given credence by a variety of discrepancies between logical plausibility and the traditional materialist worldview. Materialism is the belief that objective physical matter is the basic building block of reality and that consciousness is an inadvertent consequence of physical processes. A nondualist's worldview entails the exact opposite in that all experiences must come from a singularity that encompasses all conceptual possibilities within, which would mean that there is no actual "self" because all is one. People claim that a "spiritual enlightenment" is possible through surrendering to the truth of "no self". Enlightenment is said to entail an awakening to the true nature of being and freeing your consciousness from the illusory nature of "self" which thus eliminates all suffering.

When explaining this nuanced topic I don't find it helpful to immediately frame non-duality in a "spiritual" context. I'd prefer to address non-duality as it is described in scientific models such as Robert Lanza's Biocentrism or Chris Langan's Cognitive Theoretic Model of the Universe. Until a belief for nondualism has been rationally justified it will be referred to as "dualistic monism" to avoid conflating the two paradigms of mysticism and rationality.

Dualistic monism has profound existential implications such as the infinite nature of consciousness and how it transcends your biological lifespan, as well as the eventuality of living all possible experiences. A careful examination of such a worldview is indeed warranted, there is a lot at stake. 

Evidence for Dualistic Monism:

There is a limitation with how far you can reason to demonstrate such a worldview. Thankfully there happens to exist a variety of factors we can use to inductively reason with strong confidence that consciousness exists monistically. Deductive reasoning will never be possible of course, but the inductive reasoning is so strong I would argue it serves as equally compelling. 

The Double Slit Experiment, which proves spacetime and consciousness to be interconnected can be interpreted as strong evidence for dualistic monism. The experiment famously shows electron particles alternating states between "wave" (light) and "particle" (physical matter) positions which mysteriously depend on whether someone observed the act or not (mind-fuck). If the experiment was being recorded the electrons acted like physical particles, but if no recording was created the electrons would behave like a wave (which is strange enough in itself since electrons are small matter particles, let alone the absurdity of realizing the outcome was dependent on conscious observation). Here is a video if you are unfamiliar. Double Slit Experiment - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fwXQjRBLwsQ

I can't imagine being so naive as to intake this information and not come away thinking this experiment changes everything. If you aren't totally hapless you should realize that the nature of reality is completely up-in-the-air after witnessing this experiment. Such a phenomenon should only be possible in a digital world, or a video game. If tiny matter particles can be systematically demonstrated to have properties that react to awareness then it completely precludes the necessity for a materialistic worldview. When you are immersed in a digital world you are not surprised when objects impossibly teleport elsewhere because you know this occurrence was not really impossible since the physical world is only being represented through illusory means such as pixels, which do not need to conform to physical laws. The Double Slit Experiment undeniably demonstrates this is how we should perceive reality, such that if a tree falls in the woods with nobody around, not only does it not make a sound but there is not actually a tree, as conscious experience defines what reality is. Reality is best described as a network of every consciousness that exists rather than a physical universe that exists independent of conscious agents.

Now that we have inductively established that consciousness is fundamental to reality we can investigate further.

The fundamental role consciousness plays in reality should bring to mind some discrepancies or 'existential plot-holes' so to speak pertaining to life as you've been led to believe it exists. For myself, this evokes the obvious fact that average people are alive for 80 years, and the universe has existed for around 13.7 billion years. If what we are led to believe is true, that we live once and that's it, this would suggest a 1 in (at least) 171,250,000 chance of being alive presently. Your relatively insignificant existence should either [A: have passed ages ago] or [B: not be set to occur for eons]. In a materialist's paradigm, probabilistically, you should not exist. But we do exist, suggesting that consciousness is in fact infinite and not limited to our biological lifespans. Considering this probability alongside the double slit experiment gives an undeniable credibility to the idea of infinite consciousness. 

Even if you disregard the lifespan probability and the double slit experiment there is yet another way you can reason that your consciousness is infinite. 

Regardless of whether your consciousness is infinite, some careful reasoning would dictate rather unambiguously that infinity must be inherent to the structure of reality because the universe that we occupy is insanely improbable. In other words, there needed to be an infinite multiplicity of 'attempts' if you will, to get reality as it is. If you are a programmer like myself, you know that the intelligibility of any working system hinges upon factors upon factors and factors which just could not have accidentally aligned themselves unless there were unlimited tries. The fact that we have any observable universe whatsoever let alone the insanely intricate one that we have, is itself akin to having a working operating system with no software or interface installed, which obviously could not have come about accidentally, yet what we have can be likened to a fully configured operating system with profoundly intricate software and a multi-dimensional interface. This could only be the work of infinity, or an intelligent design. Regardless of whether there is an actual intelligent designer, we can reason that such a designer itself would be within the realm of infinity, possibly negating the need for a distinction. 

Because infinity must be fundamental to the structure of reality we can reason that whatever the case needs to be in order for your awareness to emerge, it must be happening infinitely throughout some facet of infinity which can never cease to exist nor cease to actualize new potentialities for your life to come about. To illustrate this, it's helpful to visualize imaginary code that theoretically equates to your existence in relation to the universe.

Say that your birth is the following binary code:

  • 010101101001000010010000010101000101011010010100001101010000010111101001000100010000110111100001010001011100100111110000100101110000010101011100001000001111

The true math/code/binary that equates to your actual existence is obviously much more complicated, but it is easy to imagine how after so many attempts it is inevitable that your numbers will eventually come up so to speak. It is undeniable that such a process of infinity is responsible for our universe, as there could not possibly be a working system of this order without infinity. We can therefore conclude that our own existence will always be present somewhere in infinity because anything that occurs once in an infinite span occurs infinitely so. 

It is thus required that a worldview of reality be adopted that accounts for the infinite nature of consciousness. Obviously when trying to decipher the true nature of reality we must start from absolute nothingness. Anything that exists can only be the consequence of that which already was, so starting from nothingness we can reason that nothing was even needed for reality to manifest, implying that all of reality is manifested within an inadvertent property of nothingness which must be indistinguishable from infinity itself. You do not need any universe or thing at all for certain things to be true. We can all agree it is true that 1 + 1 = 2 regardless of there being a universe or any thing at all. However this is an extremely simple "truth". In the realm of nothingness, there must exist an infinite multiplicity of truths, some of which are so intricate that they literally manifest entire realities within themselves. As a human being we can only imagine very simplistic truths, but when you're dealing with the nature of infinity, obviously this introduces more possibilities than we can comprehend.

To continue, you need to be familiar with the definition of a tautology. A tautology is that which is true by necessity of it's form, or something that could not possibly be untrue. For instance, if a glass of water is half empty, it tautologically follows that it is half full. 

Similar to the unconditional truth in the number 2 which tautologically follows from 1 + 1, the truth that follows from "This statement is true." is also a tautology, albeit simple. Regardless of the language we use the sentiment will always be true, but we used English here, which is extremely simple relatively speaking. There are only 26 letters in the alphabet, and with these 26 characters we can convey just about anything. Now imagine a language that isn't just a finite set of simplistic characters, but imagine the language is made of every single stimuli and sensation you have ever perceived. Such a language could contain trillions of "characters" and these characters would be far more dynamic than a mere letter "A". Whether a language is a verbal one or it isn't, we know there exists an infinite multiplicity of syntactical arrangements for that language regardless. So throughout the entirety of infinity there exists an infinite amount of tautologically true configurations of linguistic logic, some of which undeniably give rise to complicated realities, as we are here to observe.

Considering the nature of our universe and the complexity of life around us, it begs the question why does our existence (or our facet of infinity) happen to exist as it does? Why is it so sophisticated? If it were so that we are just experiencing some random possible instance out infinity why would our experience be such an intelligible one? Surely out of an infinite multiplicity of reality-manifesting tautologies most of these configurations do not reach the level of comprehensible intricacy seen in our universe. For instance, surely for every reality such as ours where intelligent awareness is created through even more complicated means of the environment, there must exist an onslaught of realities wherein the tautologically true configuration for what makes awareness consists only of that awareness itself, all alone, hardly able to discern up from down if at all, rather than an awareness spawned in a convenient world with what appear to be other conscious agents in it. Despite every unpleasantness people fail to comprehend how conveniently reality is structured.

To put it simply, in a dumb-luck reality it would make a lot more sense to exist as a much less sophisticated being than how we currently find ourselves. It follows that the existence of infinity can be described as an infinite realm of potentialities contained within a spaceless/timeless singularity that inadvertently equates to an infinitely intelligent mind due to the interconnected state of nothingness separating all of infinity. Considering the unconditional truth of the number 2, which can tautologically follow from an infinite number of equations ([1 + 1], [2 + 0], [1/4 x 8] etc...). The infinite number of equations that allow for 2 to follow truthfully demonstrates that literally anything you can imagine must have not just one, but an infinite number of intelligent means of arriving at its tautological manifestation through infinite intelligence. This can only mean that the actual distinction between existence and non-existence is an arbitrary distinction being made by an infinitely intelligent mind capable of processing infinity by means of its boundlessness, and that the mind must be us, and we must each be one another, as we all must be derived from the singularity. 

This corroborates dualistic monism and explains why you exist as yourself, and not someone else. Because your current self is only a single facet of infinity, which is being intelligently cycled through. 

Implications of Dualistic Monism: 

It seems that in order to derive a positive outlook on life from this worldview a lot of faith is required. Does the infinite intelligence that imagined us into being truly care about it's own well-being? If it did, it would make sense to exist in absolute comfort, yet we find ourselves in a pain-filled reality where we can only hope that the spirituality teachers claiming it is possible to transcend suffering are not delusional.

I would really like to somehow see it further substantiated that it is possible to live enlightened & without pain in this reality. It seems like sort of a sick joke that such a thing would be said to be possible. Why even bother becoming "enlightened" if it takes such rigorous devotion and would only take place for the remainder of this short lifespan? You would supposedly return to being an unenlightened plebeian for eons again after your death. 

Yes it serves reason that an infinite intelligence would give itself a means of transcending into paradise, but it makes even more sense for that paradise to already be present and not requiring some immense journey. I feel it is questionable as to whether this infinite intelligence is truly out to do good, or if it's an uncontrolled intelligence seeking to maximize its potential manifestations with an arbitrary goal in mind such as diverse spawn possibilities in a world that negates solipsism (the sense that no other consciousness entities exists). That seems to me to be the only goal of this infinite intelligence. 

When I first discovered Actualized videos, the correlation of spiritual enlightenment with dualistic monism made me very excited to find an actual worldview with mysticism that makes sense with rationality, I was not dismissive towards the spiritual aspects at all. However I am now beginning to find it questionable whether there is merit to spiritual development. I would like very much for it to be true that one can attain enlightenment and free themselves from suffering, but as I discover more people who claim to have had awakenings I encounter people who do not perceive it with the anticipated positivity it should warrant. There is an interesting web page accounting one "awakened" guy's interpretation of reality that got me to doubt whether enlightenment is worth pursuing.

 http://bergytheiceman.co.uk/ 

Very dark stuff, but it is well worth the read since he explains his "theory-of-everything" with much more simplicity than what can be found in Chris Langan's CTMU, which is also a good conceptualization of nondualism.

My Intentions Here:

If Leo is the only person you learn nondualism from it is easy to assume that his experiences must be credible. But when you see a lot of different perspectives it creates ambiguity in the validity of certain facets. I would really like to see as many perspectives as possible come together so that it can be most accurately discerned whether spiritual development is truly divine with unworldly benefits or if this is a delusion facilitated through use of psychedelics. 

Edited by dyslexicFcuk

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree that rationality can be harmonized with Nonduality and spirituality. To cut off rationality as an “invalid” path to understanding Nonduality is, ironically, being dualistic. It’s creating a distinction between rational paths and spiritual paths. If reality is truly Nondualistic, then rationality can lead to the same insights as spirituality. Nice analysis! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're welcome to play such philosophical games all you want. But Truth does not depend on any kind of justification. All of your justifications come after the fact.

Of course Truth does not contradict rationality per se. But it sure does transcend it.

"The supreme function of reason is to show man that some things are beyond reason." -- Blaise Pascal

All of your reason and induction is indirect. Truth is prior to all that. Truth is even prior to perception. Reason is going to slow you down from reaching Truth.

Notice that your problem is that you don't want to let reason go. Ironically, you are irrationally attached to reason. So what's the solution? Let it go! Just let it go.


You are God. You are Love. You are Infinity. You are Leo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The bottom line is:

Forget the bottom line if you want Truth. 

You won't get there with logic or rationalism. 

Being itself is Truth.  

To reason whether its worth seeking enlightenment is to have gone too far.  

Hopefully that answers the question as to whether its worth pursuing.   It's so worth pursuing that it negates the question.  

Reality is inherently paradoxical so throw reason out the window when trying to pursue it and forget that you are pursuing it.  Heck forget that you are.

 

 

 

Edited by Inliytened1

 

Wisdom.  Truth.  Love.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I didn’t read the whole post as I got a bit lost in it, I don’t fully resonate with it but that’s fine as long as it makes sense to you. I’m a rationalist too among many other things, I don’t identify myself with anything. The only thing I 100% know is that I don’t know everything and scientists know that too that’s why there’s billions of dollars spend on researching and understanding the “reality”.

Czechs got this awesome saying “Na každém šprochu pravdy trochu.” I can’t and neither Google can translate it properly so here’s my version: “There’s a little bit of truth in everyone's view.” We all want the ultimate Truth but we’re a way far from it but we’re constantly getting closer and closer.

Edited by JustThinkingAloud
fine tuned the translation

I have an opinion on everything :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Death of a self is Awakening, philosophical inductiin feeds that self that has to go. No worry True Self kills it off. True Self is Love. 

Teachings open mind. Truth destroys it. 

Practises. ♥️

Edited by zeroISinfinity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
27 minutes ago, Synchronicity said:

There are beings that have awakened to Being and Oneness through philosophical induction.

I would be careful with cause and effect. There are beings that have awakened to Being and Oneness through getting hit with a Zen stick. It wasn’t the stick itself and it’s not the philosophy itself.
 

One cannot transcend reason through reason. Just as one cannot leave France by exploring Paris. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Serotoninluv I understand what you’re saying but I mean that reality is so boundless that there are beings who have legitimately attained it through cause rather than correlation (even with sticks). Reality is that radically infinite

Edited by Synchronicity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A few musings, for what it’s worth.

Philosophy is construction which can be deconstructed.

The unreasonable is not seen through a lens of reason.

Boundlessness cannot be captured.

Awakening involves letting go and surrendering everything.

In Truth, philosophy has no more relevance than birdsong. 

The words I speak are both true and false.

The wise know Nothing.

One word is too many, a million not enough.

♥️?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

One cannot transcend reason through reason. Just as one cannot leave France by exploring Paris. 

And this is an academically-rational statement. If it were impossible to do this then reality would indeed be rational. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, Synchronicity said:

And this is an academically-rational statement.

Through a particular lens. Sometimes it’s fun to try on another lens.

25 minutes ago, Synchronicity said:

 If it were impossible to do this then reality would indeed be rational. 

It’s all impossible.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

Through a particular lens. Sometimes it’s fun to try on another lens.

It’s all impossible.

With all due respect, then why aren’t you taking your own advice and looking through the lens of Truth being attainable through rationality? 

Edited by Synchronicity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Synchronicity said:

With all due respect, then why aren’t you taking your own advice and looking through the lens of Truth being attainable through rationality? 

There is Nothing to attain.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

There is Nothing to attain.

Why move the goal posts of the discussion... 

Edited by Synchronicity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also @Serotoninluv you don’t seem to acknowledge your own viewpoints as a lens...

Saying there’s nothing to attain is itself a lens or perspective. Saying that rationality can’t reach Truth is a lens that defines something as impossible but it’s only impossible relative to your lens

You’re still very much in the relative 

Edited by Synchronicity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, Synchronicity said:

Why move the goal posts of the discussion... 

Therein lies the answer.

Goal posts are designed with a goal in mind. 

A soccer player is not a violinist. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Serotoninluv said:

Therein lies the answer.

Goal posts are designed with a goal in mind. 

A soccer player is not a violinist. 

 

Yet you had a goal in mind when you attempted to invalidate my responses. 

Edited by Synchronicity

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Serotoninluv I’m trying to understand why you judge other people’s points as relative but your own as Absolute. Whenever someone shows you why you’re still in the relative, you avoid their answers, shift the discussion away from yourself and towards them... For example, you’ve been trying to find reasons to tell me I’m in the relative (which is fine) but you haven’t once acknowledged what you have said to be relatively true. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Synchronicity said:

@Serotoninluv I’m trying to understand why you judge other people’s points as relative but your own as Absolute. Whenever someone shows you why you’re still in the relative, you avoid their answers, shift the discussion away from yourself and towards them... For example, you’ve been trying to find reasons to tell me I’m in the relative (which is fine) but you haven’t once acknowledged what you have said to be relatively true. 

As I wrote above: the words I speak are both true and false. . . . We are not on the same frequency. I wish you a pleasant evening ♥️ ? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now