/lit/ - Literature

I could write something ten times better than any philosophy or sociology book around nowadays.

>>22505084
Share with us the most interesting idea you came across in this book, anon, I’m curious

>>22505084
I am not an orthodox so I eventually stopped reading/watching his stuff, but Dyer seemed like a very well-read guy and his analysis of the semiotics in movies are good. What is this book actually about ?

>>22505084
>since WVO Quine it has largely been abandoned and replaced with psychologism and social sciences
stfu and read more faggot

HOW I WOULD WRITE META-NARRATIVES (Essays on philosophy and mysticism)
Chapter 1:
METAPHYSICS
Aristotle defines metaphysics as the starting point of philosophy, wich he called wisdom, - the study of the totality of what is. However he did not consider the possibility of any other world or dimension - ultimately the negation of all meaning and purpose. Evola himself however perfectly points out that the heavens are something perfectly unchanged, static realities, and that rocks have an essential quality of "going downward" - wich he did quoting Aristotle, showing that Aristotle was still in many ways not a mere nihilist, but more of a traditionalist himself. A few Centuries before Evola, Francis Bacon had laughed at this, and kicked out Telos from philosophy. Now they have jettisoned for pragmatism, 'postmodernisme' and 'panmodernisme', not realizing what they were doing was more or less rejecting metaphysics in itself. Thomas Aquinas and other simplicists have not done better when they declared the human mind as incapable of accessing the divine.
With it, I do not mean that we ever observe a thelos, or purpose, but that the idea that thelos is inconceivable is what lead to the idea of the bizarre skepticism of Hume.
Kant argued against this idea, reconciling how there could be a synthetic a priori claim that is also true. His solution was empiricism, stating that an a priori claim is true if it they were observable phenomena of experience.
[...]

>>22505148
Disproving evolution

>>22505084
He's a pseud and does the typical Amerimutt screeching about "muh boogeyman postmodernists".
>>22505442
Kys, pseud Christcuck.

>>22505450
Wow excellent post I'm an atheist now

>>22505453
I don't give a shit if you're a theist or atheist. Abrahamism is absolute revolting shit.

Damn Christ and the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is a maleficent force of darkness where not a single positive thing has come.
Damn Muhammad and Allah. I place superior idols before Allah.
Damn Moses and Jacob. A bunch of narcissistic Jews.
And most of all damn you.

I like the kitty though.

>>22505450
He doesn't talk about postmodernism that much. He does a little bit though. He says that although postmodernism is wrong, it basically is just the natural conclusion of modernist presuppositions.

>>22505442
How

>>22505084
Any reason behind Dyer's obsession with Vaporwave aesthetics?

>>22505576
Evolution is a Masonic psyop and it actually is metaphysically impossible because it requires you to assume a nominalist position where species have no essences, so for example there is no essence of a cat or essence of a turtle and so on. Nominalism is objectively wrong desu.

>>22505847
That picture isn't vaporwave desu it's just Plato with some like fractal patterns behind him, which is relevant to the book because he talks about both Plato and fractals desu.

>>22505166
Yeah I like his analysis of 2001 A Space Odyssey and how he shows all of the esoteric and Platonic symbolism throughout the movie, such as the different planets corresponding to different musical chords and the octahedrons that seem to be demonic entities when Bowman goes into the higher dimension.

>>22505576
Evolution hasn't actually been proved in the first place, its still just a theory. There are multiple arguments against it. The one that pops up in my head right is the seeming lack of "intermediate species". You can claim that Species A evolved into Species B over the course of X million years, but we never find any actual bones or evidence of members of said species in-between all that. There is no Species A-B. This goes for just about everything. There's only proof for evolution through breeding for specific traits like we did with various dog breeds (which never happens in nature) and for microevolution where only very small things change across many generations but no big differences happen. (We are not very different from the earliest humans we know of)

>>22506236
It doesn't assume anti-essentialism.
>>22506282
>we never find any actual bones or evidence of members of said species in-between all that
We do.
>There's only proof for evolution through breeding for specific traits like we did with various dog breeds (which never happens in nature)
No, we see bacteria, birds, and more in the process of speciation.
>and for microevolution where only very small things change across many generations but no big differences happen
Macroevolution can't be seen due to limitations on perception of time except on a microbial level.
>We are not very different from the earliest humans we know of)
Stfu, you stupid fucking pseud. Nothing in biology makes sense without evolution.
Even Empedocles, a Pre-Socratic figured it out.
Every single Christcuck and other Abrahamist, including the children and women, should have their heads placed on pikes. I'm getting sick and tired of your war against nature.

>>22506310
Atheists are the ones who are anti-nature because you support transhumanism, feminism, homosexualism, equality, and other perversions. Christianity is in harmony with nature because it is the truth. Jesus Christ is the Logos, of Whom all of created reality is a reflection.

>>22506320
>Atheists are the ones who are anti-nature
Again, you can be a theist or atheist and it doesn't have any bearing on evolution being a fact. As I see it, the issue is with Abrahamic dogma.
>transhumanism, feminism, homosexualism, equality, and other perversions.
I do not, low IQ trash. I absolutely despise transhumanism and feminism.
>Christianity is in harmony with nature because it is the truth. Jesus Christ is the Logos, of Whom all of created reality is a reflection.
Every single Christcuck deserves to die without exception. Worship a Jew for 1000+ years, become a Spiritual Jew. There isn't a single valuable thing in your wretched tradition of spiritually cucking to a Jew. It is an anti-contemplative tradition that forces one to worship a jealous and angry desert god. Your soul is as barren as a desert.

>>22506334
Lots of Orthodox Christians name the Jews. For example Saint John of Kronstadt talked about how they were behind communism and anti-Tsar propaganda.

>>22506342
>Lots of Orthodox Christians name the Jews
It doesn't matter. You're worshiping a Jew, retard. As a consequence, you adopt their entire dialectic, which may be more sinister than you think such as what Christopher Jon Bjerknes argues.
I am not impressed by either Jesus or Muhammad's message.
Philosophically and mystically speaking, your tradition is trash. Maybe something like British Unitarianism is a bit better though, but I'll ignore exploring that since you'll most likely dismiss it as hersey anyways...
Regardless, even the modern Catholics accept evolution, but they lean more towards intelligent design. I can respect such a position, but denying evolution outright is retarded to anyone involved in the fucking field. It is flat earth tier. Do you believe in flat earth too?
I am skeptical of Neo-Darwinists, but I lean more towards a quasi-kind of panpsychism (perhaps something like nous).

>>22506351
>Regardless, even the modern Catholics accept evolution, but they lean more towards intelligent design. I can respect such a position, but denying evolution outright is retarded to anyone involved in the fucking field.
Many Orthodox Christians have rejected evolution as heresy, such as Saint John of Kronstadt and Saint Paisios.

>>22506396
>Many Orthodox Christians have rejected evolution as heresy, such as Saint John of Kronstadt and Saint Paisios.
They are wrong then.
Also, you can argue God "guides" evolution. That makes perfect sense and isn't as outright retarded. I disagree with such a claim, but I can respect it. However, denying the reality of evolution is flat earth tier. I have no respect for such a position and am serious that it is better for people who hold such delusions to be culled for the purposes of eugenics.
Do you realize just how much biodiversity there is on earth? How much of it goes extinct, how it dynamically changes across Earth's epochs, or how different lifeforms on the phylogeny resembles one another in genomic and neuroanatomical details? Creationism doesn't make any sense. Did God create each and every microbe? Also look at a cell. The mitochondria was genetically and even observationally shown as being a bacteria that was devoured by another bacteria, which it then former a symbolic relationship with. This is called endosymbiosis. This then led to unicellular life and then multicellular complex forms. So symbiosis can be considered a driver of evolution too. In each one of your body's cells, the evidence of evolution is ingrained in it.
Now, it is philosophically defensible to argue God guided this process, perhaps through his divine spirit or mind.
However, denying evolution outright makes you retarded, and on the level of desert goat *******. I am censoring that because I don't want to be banned.
Stop acting retarded.

>>22506320
This is defensive mantra you have activated in response to what you deem to be a cognitive hazard. It is for your ego's benefit only. Try actually responding to his points.

>>22505084
Jay Dyer was completely filtered by eastern philosophy

>>22506582
Jay is Eastern Orthodox.

>>22506641
I know, he was filtered by Hindu and Buddhist philosophy, Taoism, Sufi philosophy etc

>>22506655
Jay has talked extensively about monism and Neoplatonism, which is the same as Advaita Vedanta. Also Buddhism is just gnosticism which he also has refuted many times.
Fr. Seraphim Rose was a Taoist before he became Orthodox.

>>22506660
>Jay has talked extensively about monism and Neoplatonism, which is the same as Advaita Vedanta.
No, they aren’t, that’s simply wrong. There are certain similarities but that’s it. Whatever Jay says about Neoplatonism or “””monism””” is not a real argument against Hindu philosophy like Advaita, Vishishtadvaita, Trika etc

>Also Buddhism is just gnosticism which he also has refuted many times.
Also not true, they have different metaphysics

>Fr. Seraphim Rose was a Taoist before he became Orthodox.
So?

Bump

>>22507419
bump

>>22506240
>marble statue
>bright blue & purple
>odd geometry
Regardless, that doesn't explain his stream intros or the jarring lights he uses.

>>22508350
bump

>>22505084
Something oddly telling about the fact that e-debate Orthodoxy man gives his book the same kind of cover design you'd expect from exoticist charlatan 1967 hippie McBuddhism.

If I read this book in a thousand years and had no access at all to the internet or what was on it, would I come away from it thinking Jay Dyer was a serious philosopher who didn’t joke?

>>22509569
He is a serious philosopher who knows what he is talking about, but he also likes to joke around too, so I can't really give you a strict yes or no answer. He is both.

>>22509376
Is that your whole argument against him?
He refutes new age ideologies, Buddhism, and the hippy movement. In fact talks about how the whole 1960s hippie revolution was a social engineering psyop orchestrated by groups like Tavistock and the CIA.

>>22505476
you sound like a reddit starter pack that's taken human form

>>22506249
I like the talks he did on the Bond movies and comparing them to events in Carol Quigleys Tragedy and Hope

>>22505476
Do you even know anyone enough to be this angry? Who pissed in your cheerios? Like, in reality.

Are his esoteric hollywood videos good from an occultists POV. Does he actually deal with real occult symbolism in films?

It would be great to know beforehand since I don't want to spend hours on something that could just be schizo political and conspiracy nonsense.

>>22509714
yeah those are good too

>>22505482
Thinking in terms of categories, as is expected from a mutt.

> "categorestai". This signifies, in the first instance, making a public accusation, taking someone to task for something in the presence of everyone.

From heidegger, being and time, p/ 45

>>22506236

> Carcinisation (American English: carcinization) is an example of convergent evolution in which a crustacean evolves into a crab-like form from a non-crab-like form. The term was introduced into evolutionary biology by L. A. Borradaile, who described it as "one of the many attempts of Nature to evolve a crab"

>>22506240
Interesting. Tell me more.

http://philsci-archive.pitt.edu/8961/1/Fractal_Patterns_of_Reasoning.pdf

> This paper is the third and final one in a sequence of three. All three papers emphasize that a proposition can be justified by an infinite regress, on condition that epistemic justification is interpreted probabilistically. The first two papers showed this for one-dimensional chains and for one-dimensional loops of propositions, each proposition being justified probabilistically by its precursor. In the present paper we consider the more complicated case of two-dimensional nets, where each “child” proposition is probabilistically justified by two “parent” propositions. Surprisingly, it turns out that probabilistic justification in two di- mensions takes on the form of Mandelbrot’s iteration. Like so many patterns in nature, probabilistic reasoning might in the end be fractal in character.

>>22506282
Ditto for evolution of languages

>>22505166
>What is this book actually about ?
It's a decent primer on metaphysics and general philosophy.
>>22509569
>would I come away from it thinking . . .
worse, it may make you realize that you have no sense of humor.

>>22505847
It seems like it just got built up by fans and people helping with the channel over the years.

Honestly, the aesthetic of the channel has careened downhill. The Miami Vice sleazecore look is awful. The channel was better back when he was presenting as a well-read philosopher that could talk the lingo of online dissidents and the alt-right while doing interviews with guys like Joseph Farrell. Now, he’s just a run-of-the-mill streamer.

The channel is gotten way worse of the last few years in my opinion.

>>22506655
He makes it sound silly actually. All of his critiques of Eastern philosophies are totally valid. It is nonsense to say the world is illusion except your realization that the world is an illusion, for example.

>>22511708
He still does good serious work when he's not goofing around though desu.

>>22509617
Was a serious philosopher*

He seems to have slid into a run-of-the-mill streamer channel. He doesn’t even talk about serious philosophy anymore and every time he does the Q&A/Debate streams, he just cuts people off and refuses to answer the question. The old Jay Dyer would have addressed the question or argument. Getting frustrated or annoyed is not an excuse. This is the career he chose. And you can’t blame people if it’s been addressed but they don’t know that because it’s buried by a million silly videos with onions face pictures that don’t have any keywords to give it away and no reading recommendations.

More or more the guy seems like a run-of-the-mill online grifter eCeleb wannabe who is just using orthodoxy to justify his conspiracy streaming rather than an orthodoxy/philosophy streamer who happens to have a space for conspiracy, jokes, etc.

>>22511694
I do have a sense of humor. If you’re going to do serious philosophy, you should be serious. Silliness undermines the project. There’s a time for seriousness, and a time for jokes. I suspect he just doesn’t care as long as he makes money either way.

>>22505084
So I downloaded this piece of shit to look how good it might be. It's garbage, and the author calls himself a popular comedian, no he's just a dropout type weirdo, never trust these people, he starts right by saying hey metaphysics isn't new age, and then the book has magical symbols and other crap all over the place. And he starts saying how metaphysics should be respectable and then doesn't do anything new, just treads overtread ground all over again. Embarrassing, and the fact OP (if you're not Dyer himself, which is likely) fall for this garbage shows you are the happy pig and not Socrates unhappy. For us who are in the know and know both sides, we know where the true philosophy can be found and what it looks like. In your bliss ignorance you and countless anons eat the garbage slop and then act like you KNOW the other side must be garbage. Grow up and eat the veggies you hate please, stop eating just the junk food and getting burger cancer. It's not that I hate what you said about things, but when you say patently false shit like this:
>Now that hardly anyone actually does real philosophy anymore (since WVO Quine it has largely been abandoned and replaced with psychologism and social sciences
Then it's hard to believe that you've even acknowledged that the 1970s-2020s exist, and all the revival-of-metaphysics work done since then. Go read that. AFTER you've mastered it fully, come back and read your Dyer shit. Eat your goddamn veggies PLEASE you happy pig, the slop you're in isn't good just because it currently feels good.

>>22505084
>Easily the best philosophical book of the 21st century so far. A clear, nuanced, and thorough analysis of metaphysics, epistemology, and the problems of modernity nominalism and empiricism
Thats not real philosophy tho :/

>>22511713
It’s almost entirely goofing around now. I’ve watched the channel for years while I work in the mornings and it helped me fill up that time and even come to Orthodoxy, but I unsubscribed after the last video. It’s just not a good channel anymore imo. Too much jokey lame bs.

>>22511726
In the 20th century, a few dissident philosophers used the occult to smuggle their dissident philosophy into the mainstream and vice versa. Maybe he’s trying to do the same with comedy now that occultism is more or less mainstream? Irony is pretty much that last form dissidence. Either way, it doesn’t work, I agree.

>>22511732
I apologize for being suspicious for the following thing but the "maybe" tactic I see often feels like shillers astroturfing themselves, and I've seen it so often from more obvious cases. If you are Mr. Dyer, just know I'm not whipping you up into shape from hate. I want everyone to improve and there's all the time and resources in the world to do so. It just comes down to you (if you are Dyer). Even if not, I hope people listen to the advice it's coming from a good place I just get moody sometimes on this site, happens when things repeat over and over again and nobody grows. Anyway, regarding the occult, I think the most interesting conversation to have on the occult is the possibility of secular miracle-working based on a secular praxeology of faith. But most occultist types just larp and I don't think they really care to know more. But one shouldn't mess with that stuff before getting a really masterful learning in logic, reasoning, and philosophy (academic and rigorous and everything, but also historical, and from around the world) up to date in 2023. Synchronic and diachronic breadth is key. Master everything, it only takes 10 years to get already to a good spot if you give it the effort, now imagine the next 40 years or 50 if you live that long. Very few people have it in them to be ravenous autodidacts-and-academics both. But the geniuses of history had to do that to make a change. Otherwise you recreate the wheel, and in shitty ways at that.

>>22511744
I’m not Jay Dyer. I’m also critical of the occult. I’m only suggesting that as a possibility. You see this a lot now. All of these comedians think they are philosophers and perhaps a few philosophers think comedy is a good way to do philosophy, a bit like how some philosophers thought the occult was a good way to do philosophy (Evola comes to mind). It’s not in my opinion. That wasn’t really a value judgement on philosophy, the occult, or comedy.

>>22511730
He still does good videos on conspiracies and the satanic globalist agenda.

>>22511769
I disagree. It’s all the same stuff over and over, and all of it is laced more and more with silliness, more and more impatience, more more about whatever the current online zeitgeist is. The channel used to be about literature, real literature, classical philosophy and theology. Go look at the old videos. They are serious talks about philosophy, about religion, about culture and art, interviews with serious writers even if they were a bit schizo conspiracy theorists. They were serious interviews and Jay after was mostly a serious person. I can only suspect he’s gotten more jaded with the audience or more corrupted by money, because he doesn’t do what he used to do. But either way, I think it’s going to alienate people like me. And so is the weird Miami Vice sleazecore aesthetic. It’s not even really funny. It’s just gross and off-putting. Ironically, the cover of the book is good. That Classical-Medieval Philosophy meets Fashwave aesthetic worked well enough. It said “this is a serious thing and I’m a serious scholar, but we also like to connect with the chronically online youth”. Even the old music was better lol. I don’t know. Maybe others disagree but that’s my opinion. The channel has gotten significantly worse and I suspect I’m not alone I’m thinking so. I guess that’s how everything is once it gains popularity. I think he had like 50k subscribers at most when I started watching and listening.

>>22511712
>He makes it sound silly actually.
Only because he doesn’t understand what he is talking about, but that’s just a strawman fallacy and not a real argument.
>All of his critiques of Eastern philosophies are totally valid.
They actually aren’t, feel free to list any you think are valid
>It is nonsense to say the world is illusion except your realization that the world is an illusion, for example.
That’s not what any school teaches, not even Advaita (it’s a dumb strawman fallacy). Advaita says that all thoughts are illusions but this doesn’t prevent us from knowing God because God is our own innermost awareness that is already known and self-evident to itself, and what’s more this awareness knows itself directly by its very nature without relying upon thoughts or anything else illusory in order for It to be automatically aware of Itself, so Jay’s “””argument””” doesn’t actually demonstrate that such a doctrine makes it impossible to know God/the Absolute. Moreover, he doesn’t even address the point that true statements about reality/God can still be made from within an illusion, just as dream characters can say true things about waking life.

>>22512108
What you tend to miss and what Dyer gets right is that you don’t even have to understand all of the particular nuance if there are inherent problems with the basic philosophical presuppositions. For example, he would be right to point out that if Advaita is non-dualistic, it’s necessarily monistic or triadic by default. If it’s monistic, then the critique I just made earlier applies. If it’s triadic, it’s just aping Christianity. This is why you fail to realize how stupid it is to say things like “all thoughts are illusions…[except this one thought I’m having about how we can know God and how He is our innermost Self]” It’s an incoherent claim. A Christian could easily accuse you of delusion and there’s absolutely no conceivable way of you justifying the argument that what you claimed is indeed the truth and not mere delusion. Sure, Jay Dyer sounds like a broken record when he says these things and he doesn’t know everything there is to know about these philosophies, but he’s absolutely right regarding these critiques.

>>22512108
Advaitans will really tell you that everything is illusory except the self and expect you to accept that their own self awareness told them that is if that’s not circular and/or illusory. It’s funny really.

>>22512146
>If it’s triadic, it’s just aping Christianity.
Lol, just kys, you fucking retarded. Not every tripartite metaphysical schema is aping Christianity. I stopped reading your garbage post right there. Kys, moron.
What defines Christcuckery is stuff like The Incarnation and the Resurrection. You can adopt a tripartite metaphysical schema without accepting such dumb bullshit.

>>22512553
If it’s at all coherent, it is just aping Christianity as a matter of necessity. You would have accepted all the basic theological presuppositions of Christianity and would by default be a Christian.

>>22512553
Name a tripartite metaphysical schema that denies the incarnation, the resurrection, and/or the divinity of Christ. Name just one.

>>22512595
>If it’s at all coherent, it is just aping Christianity as a matter of necessity.
This is the dumbest bullshit I have ever read. It's brainlet tier on the level of inbred Muslim arguments of "everyone being born a monotheist".

Adopting a tripartite metaphysical schema does not mean one is a Christian. Nicene Christianity is also defined by the Incarnation and Resurrection. For example, if there were no resurrection of Jesus, then that completely dismantles your entire religion.

>>22512605
The trikaya of Mahayana.

>>22512611
I understand that you think so, but you’re being challenged on why you think so. If what you said is true you should be able to name just one coherent worldview which contains a tripartite metaphysical schema.

>>22512614
That’s 3 states of the Buddha, a single being. That’s not a “triadic metaphysical schema”. What you heard is “triadic deity” or deity with 3 modes, but that’s not even what I said and besides, that’s called modalism in Christianity and it’s been refuted for two millenia now. The persons of the trinity are not “modes”. They are real distinct persons and that’s partly why it’s coherent.

Does anyone have that picture of a cube whose shadows cast against three separate walls as a way to illustrate the Trinity? I always thought that was telling, and it shows the vile cube-like nature of Christcuckery. Mudslimes and J*ws are likewise obsessed with cubes. If there is one thing that unites all of Abrahamism, it is the cube.

>>22512605
Late Platonism, Neoplatonism

>>22512687
Didn’t deny the incarnation, resurrection, or divinity of Christ, but refuted nonetheless and then transformed into something coherent via patristic thought. Everyone knows this. Any others?

>>22512687
Just to be clear, your prime example of a triadic metaphysical schema that isn’t like Christianity is Neoplatonism…?

>>22512938
I mean, Plato didn't affirm the incarnation, resurrection, or divinity of Christ.
>>22512943
What's the issue?

>>22512146
>For example, he would be right to point out that if Advaita is non-dualistic, it’s necessarily monistic or triadic by default. If it’s monistic, then the critique I just made earlier applies.
That isn’t true, these are just simplistic labels and its begging the question to insist that everything has to be grouped under dualism, monism or ‘triadism’, Jay does not have any real argument establishing that this is necessarily true. Advaita non-dualism isn’t any of these three, it’s not monism because it doesn’t say that the illusion is strictly identical with God, they are of a different ontological status, and it’s not dualism because there is only one undivided and partless reality (anything else is not real). And I already pointed out why the so-called critique mentioned earlier is wrong, namely it’s a strawman fallacy and has nothing to so with the doctrine that it’s attempting to criticize.

>This is why you fail to realize how stupid it is to say “all thoughts are illusions…[except this one thought I’m having about how we can know God and how He is our innermost Self]”
You are the one who is acting stupid by repeating a strawman after I already identified it as being a strawman fallacy, do you not have any reading comprehension or something? Advaita doesn’t make any exception for non-illusory thoughts, all thoughts are illusory; however God is not known through thoughts, God is known through our own immediate awareness of our consciousness, which is not a ‘thought’ but is rather just non-conceptual and non-discursive awareness disclosing itself. This awareness, being identical with God (Brahman) Himself, is necessarily non-illusory, thus there is nothing inconsistent in saying that thoughts and sense-perceptions are illusory and yet God is known directly as one’s awareness without relying on anything that is illusory to know God. Moreover, illusions can communicate true information.
>It’s an incoherent claim.
What you are talking about is a strawman fallacy, as I have now pointed out for the second time.

>A Christian could easily accuse you of delusion and there’s absolutely no conceivable way of you justifying the argument that what you claimed is indeed the truth and not mere delusion.
Sure, I can justify it by citing scriptural sources of those teachings which Hindus consider as being revealed, which is the same answer Jay would say about Christian scripture if asked the same question about if Christians are deluded, so the same point is true about Jay’s own position, it’s not a real argument that refutes anything.

> but he’s absolutely right regarding these critiques.
I just explained why it’s actually wrong, you didn’t understand the first time and I had to repeat myself, maybe you’ll have better luck this time.

good video
https://youtu.be/koC36NcCrzg?si=PQNawPJqyMjT8X2W

>>22512157
>Advaitans will really tell you that everything is illusory except the self and expect you to accept that their own self awareness told them that is if that’s not circular and/or illusory. It’s funny really.
Wrong, the revealed scripture is the source of the teaching about all non-Self being illusory. It’s not circular to take something taught by scripture as a valid knowledge or source of knowledge, its only circular to insist that one has to accept it as true because its taught by scripture.

The idea that awareness (which is really nothing else but Brahman) discloses or proves its own self-evident presence as awareness is a separate epistemological point about the very nature of awareness and its unrelated to the point about non-Self being illusory, you appear to be conflating or confusing these two points.

>>22512952
He predated the incarnation so how could he affirm it? Conversely, how could he deny it? This isn’t a denial.

>>22513057
It does necessarily have to be monistic, dualistic, or triadic. There are no conceivable alternatives. The only alternative is that it’s none, which is inconceivable, and the philosophy would thus be nonsense by definition.
> an undivided and paperless reality
is monism. Whether it’s “identifical” with God (do you even believe God exists?) is irrelevant. You also did not point out how or why it’s a strawman. You only said it’s a strawman. If someone draws out the logical implications that are an absolute necessity in your word view and refutes them, you can’t call it a strawman just because you didn’t say those implications outright. You don’t have to admit your worldview is monistic for it to in reality be monistic. And if it’s not monistic, I’d challenge you to make clear what it is? Dualistic? Triadic? Nothing?

>>22513057
How do you arrive at this non-discursive awareness? How do you know that it is indeed non-discursive awareness?

>>22513124
>It does necessarily have to be monistic, dualistic, or triadic.
Why? There is no good argument which shows this to be true
>The only alternative is that it’s none, which is inconceivable
It's not inconceivable if you simply understand that not every metaphysics is reducible to monism, dualism or triadism. It only appears inconceivable to someone who is wedded to a laughably dumb and unproven assumption about the nature of existence.

>>22513124
>is monism.
Define "monism" then, Dyerfags always seem to shy away from doing so when asked in my experience

>You also did not point out how or why it’s a strawman.
Yes I did. I already could tell your reading comprehension was bad but this is just getting embarrassing.

I never said "everything has to be monism, dualism or triadism" was a strawman, I instead simply said that this claim is unfounded. What I actually said was the strawman was taking Jay's argument against "monism" and applying to Advaita. It's a strawman because it says that there is no way to know God if thoughts are illusory and that's a strawman because Advaita never said that God was known through thoughts to begin with, God is known through awareness, which is something fundamentally different from thoughts. Since the point about thoughts being illusory doesn't prevent God from being known through one's own non-conceptual awareness of oneself/one's awareness, it's a strawman to pretend that it does.

>>22513154
Either there is one thing, two things, three things, no things, or some number of things that would necessarily be reducible to groups of one, two, or three. I can’t conceive of a thing which is somehow none of these. Can you?

https://youtu.be/0qp78lR5QDE?si=ttJKe7LNlhWLHhxZ

>>22513128
>How do you arrive at this non-discursive awareness?
You already possess it right now, or to be more accurate, you are it. The creaturely mind-body complex has this awareness as its unshakable foundation. There is no possibility of gaining or losing what is your essential nature since it's inalienable from yourself. Your own self-evident awareness of yourself as a sentient presence takes place automatically without the involvement of thought, awareness is just naturally self-evident to itself due to the very nature that constitutes awareness.

The error that Advaita teachings seek to undue is the erroneous mental identification of this awareness with other things and vice-versa, along with a host of incorrect beliefs about the nature of existence/reality, these are corrected by the right understanding of the information provided by the divinely-revealed scripture, which uproots these errors.

>How do you know that it is indeed non-discursive awareness?
Advaita has a revealed scriptural source that says as much, but without even relying upon this you can just pay attention to your experience and notice that your awareness of the fact that you are conscious happens automatically even when you aren't thinking about it, even when you are thinking about other things entirely it's never not obvious to you that you are sentient, this is because the self-evident nature of awareness doesn't rely upon any sort of discursivity in order for it to be self-evident.

>>22513212
You could have just admitted plainly that you know about your non-discursive awareness via a circular non-discursive awareness. In other words, “you don’t”.

>>22513162
>Either there is one thing, two things, three things, no things, or some number of things that would necessarily be reducible to groups of one, two, or three.
Two and Three are reducible to multiples of 1, so if this is your sole argument then it can just as easily be flipped on its head to say that "dualism" and "triadism" are just varieties of monism.

Moreover, there is no necessary reason that obliges one to suppose that ultimate reality has any sort of structural correspondence with humanly notions of numbers/math, it's question-begging (circular) to assume that it does and then to use that as some sort of purported demonstrative argument.

>>22513227
>You could have just admitted plainly that you know about your non-discursive awareness via a circular non-discursive awareness.
There are not two things that know each-other, there is just one thing that is self-knowing, as in awareness (which is not two things) automatically knows itself.
>In other words, “you don’t”.
Wrong, that doesn't follow at all, the contrary is true; awareness is always known and it is the most self-evident and undeniable thing of all. It's impossible to claim that you are unaware of or have no knowledge of being aware without engaging in the act of lying.

>>22513236
Are you dumb? Four is two groups of two right? What is two groups of one? It’s two. Sure, two is reducible into one. It’s still two either way. Whereas four is literally just two twos. By the way, Christians believe in a triune God, one nature, three persons. If we’re going to be liberal with language for a moment, yes, Christianity does in a way suppose both triadism and monism, and here’s the thing: it does so in the only way that is at all coherent. That’s exactly why I said any triadic worldview is necessarily just aping Christianity. See? You got it.

>>22513253
I understand that you believe there is one thing that is self-knowing. I asked you how you know that. The literal answer is that you know the truth about the thing which is self-knowing per the thing which is self-knowing, which is circular, and also incoherent nonsense. How can the thing which is needing justification justify itself? This whole line of thinking is dismantled in about 5 minutes right here >>22513173 and you can’t overcome this critique. You make a claim about something “illusory thoughts but real non-discursive awareness”, you’re pressed on how you know that, and because you don’t have an answer you have to double down and assert the claim again “the non-discursive awareness”. It just begs the question. You don’t actually know.

Jay is really good at exposing the Satanic messaging in pop culture. Not just the obvious things but also the more subtle metaphors and hints that most people wouldn't notice.

who are the best philosophy bros to follow? I like Jay Dyer, Aarvoll, Keith Woods, Tyler Hamilton, who else is there?

>>22513318
Jay's deacon friend Norwegian Nous
https://www.youtube.com/live/NXLGcVCtT88?si=w9_18AUAaNHl5m0r

>>22506442
Its crazy that these types will cite science they never performed and books they barely read with the same zealousness of a religious fanatic. Im sure your gay science nerds have it all figured out…

>>22506442
> the reality of evolution
What reality? That creatures adapt to their environments over time is accepted by pretty much everyone. This reality? Or is it the highly disputed story you tell yourself about how we somehow adapted our way from a an amoeba to a monkey to an African for which quite literally no evidence exists nor can exist? That reality? Once you’ve moved away from mere observation about what’s occurring to telling a story about origins, you’ve exited the realm of science and possibly reality entirely.

>>22513259
>Are you dumb? Four is two groups of two right? What is two groups of one? It’s two. Sure, two is reducible into one. It’s still two either way.
That's using inconsistent logic since your argument against admitting "quadism" or "sextupletism" was that they are reducible to 1, 2, or 3; so you are contradicting yourself and using completely inconsistent logic when you try to plead for a special exception in the case of 2 being "still two either way" even though it's reducible to 1, one can also say this of 4, 5, 6 etc being non-reducible in the same way.
> it does so in the only way that is at all coherent.
I have not seen one good argument from Dyerfags as to why anything else is incoherent, he presents the most mid-wit kind of talking-points

>>22513277
>I understand that you believe there is one thing that is self-knowing. I asked you how you know that. The literal answer is that you know the truth about the thing which is self-knowing per the thing which is self-knowing, which is circular, and also incoherent nonsense.

I actually mentioned multiple ways it can be known and not just one, the first I mentioned was through revealed scripture which says so.

The second thing that I mentioned was that you can discern it as being true through an examination of your own experience as a sentient entity, since this takes place in ways that show that awareness is self-evident to itself, this isn't even circular in the way that you claimed since it is the mind which examines lived experience and not awareness (awareness is unchanging and doesn't engage in acts like examination), thus the mind (B) is examining something about the way in which awareness (A) illuminates the mind and experience generally, so that's not even circular in the way in which you were claiming since something besides awareness is being used to provide confirmation about the way in which awareness exists.

Lastly, you can use logic to deduce that awareness is self-evident and self-revealing by nature, since if there was no self-revealing awareness at the basis of all experience it results in an implausible infinite regress since no experience ever ends up being revealed to anything at all, but only to things which have no awareness of themselves being aware, so there is an infinite chain with no end that allows someone or something to have the experience of being aware of anything at all.

Those are three (3) separate ways in which it can be known, none of them are incoherent

>How can the thing which is needing justification justify itself?
Simple: it can do so if it has the nature of being self-justifying, awareness by nature justifies its own presence as awareness since it's self-evident to itself via having self-evident awareness of itself. You don't have to be a genius to understand this but it's quite simple. There is nothing inherently illogical in the concept of something being self-justifying by nature.

>>22513277
>This whole line of thinking is dismantled in about 5 minutes right here >>22513173 and you can’t overcome this critique.
He is talking to a Buddhist there who rejects almost all of what Vedantins say, I have already explained why Jay Dyer's arguments are trash and I have already explained why the arguments you have mentioned fail or are strawmen, if there is something in the video you also want to bring up then post about it yourself but Im not going to waste time right now watching him argue with a Buddhist, I don't even agree with most of Buddhism.

>You make a claim about something “illusory thoughts but real non-discursive awareness”, you’re pressed on how you know that, and because you don’t have an answer you have to double down and assert the claim again “the non-discursive awareness”.
False, I gave two initial answers "revealed scripture" and "empirical analysis", neither are circular in the way you were claiming since the mind is what does the empirical examination and not awareness itself. Moreover there is the 3rd route of logical deduction which I also just mentioned.
>It just begs the question.
There is no question-begging, I just listed 3 ways in which it can be known
>You don’t actually know.
I know and agree with it and I can cite as the basis of this 1) scripture, 2) empirical analysis by the mind and 3) logical deduction

>>22513386
>awareness by nature justifies its own presence as awareness
To add, awareness is naturally self-justifying by being naturally self-evident, this is why you cannot claim to be unaware of being aware without lying; however when someone pays mental attention to and analyzes their empirical experience, their mind (not awareness) is being used to perform this act and thus something besides awareness is being used to bring about confirmation of something about awareness.

>>22513386
>There is nothing inherently illogical in the concept of something being self-justifying by nature.
Just like with the point about the self-evident nature of awareness, you can actually apply a similar regress argument to show that if someone philosophically accepts the idea of "justification" as being valid in principle then they are forced by logical necessity to accept that some things or at least one thing is fundamentally self-justifying, because if something is always and only justified by something besides itself then you end up in a regress where the justification of the present thing requires a prior justification, and that 2nd one by the 3rd and so on ad infinitum, which means that there is no root justification that allows for anything else to be considered meaningfully justified since none of the justifications are ultimately justified. The fact that Dyerfags sputter and claim incomprehension when confronted with the claim that something can be considered self-justifying really shows the level of cluelessness.

>>22505166
>and his analysis of the semiotics in movies are good
>So, like Richard Dawkins, God as conceived of in the Bible is silly, but alien life is reasonable. Alien existence is “scientific,” whereas Christianity is a fable. And this is reasonable and “scientific” because billions of years means “life” will most likely randomly spring from muck and lightning somewhere else out there. This is nothing but a an absurd Gospel of its own. As St. Paul explains in Romans 1, when men turn from the true God, they inevitably worship lies and fables, deifying creatures and creation, as we see here with Kubrick.
I thought this was a serious thread for a moment. Silly old me.

>>22505442
Two words: Endogenous Retroviruses
there I disproved you and your groomer
so now that we have disproved his take on evolution, anything else in his book that I can destroy?

>>22514750
I didn't get the vaccine and I'm not gonna.

>>22513390
That’s because the “Vedantins” don’t say anything particular. You ask one of them and they’ll insist they are “non-dualist”. Okay, but what does that mean exactly. They will never tell you. They endorse “non-dualism” because they know that dualism is obviously self-refuting, but sit on the fence regarding whether they want to be more like Neoplatonists or more like Christians and since you can’t pin them down, you can’t refute them. That, however, is not a justification. It’s just a refuse to admit your actual position. The only “non-dualism” that is at all coherent is Christianity. That is Jay Dyer’s basic thesis and it’s a thesis with which I completely agree. You can say “strawman” over and over but if you can’t even articulate your actual position, it’s just a meaningless word, just like “non-dualism”.

>>22513382
No, the argument was that four is in reality also two twos and not four. Two is never not two. Similarly, three is reducible to one, but it’s never not also reducible to three.
4 -> 2x 2 (no 4s any longer)
2 -> 1x2 (2 remains)
3 -> 1x3 (3 remains)
That they are “reducible” into something was never the point. The point was rather that they are reducible but zero, one, two, and three are the only ones that are always distinct in themselves no matter if they’re reducible. You knew that, but you’re grasping at straws over “what you said” to try to get some sort of BS technical win, but you won’t get it. And if I did happen to not phrase things carefully enough, the point was still clear and playing at semantics won’t help you reach enlightenment.

> we know only through our own non-discursive awareness and can’t possibly know things through any other method
> how do you know
> my own non-discursive awareness told me so!
> that makes no sense
> yeah, huh it’s just like an awareness that you have to completely defy logic, reason, and rationality to accept so just accept it
> why?
> my awareness that calls me to completely defy logic, reason, and rationality told me to!
Buddhism in a nut shell

>>22513390
> 1) scripture?
How is this a justification of knowledge? It only begs the question “how do you know you can trust scripture?”
>2) empirical analysis of the mind
Also, begging the question “How do you know this empirical analysis is reliable”?
>3) logical deduction
“How do you know you can trust logical principles?”

See the problem? You’ve just re-stated that you know things. The question is “how do you know things?” You’ve failed to give any account for the possibility of knowledge at all. The closest you’ve come is stating that knowledge is made possible via a “non-discursive awareness” but again “how do you know that?” Your answer is “via my non-discursive awareness”. That is circular. You can State over and over that this awareness is self-aware and self-evident, but that’s just an unjustified claim of you can’t give some account for the possibility of knowledge independent of this awareness. You are merely accepting that it’s justified for no reason at all. And worse yet, you’ve accepted that the only thing external to itself is necessarily illusory so there can’t be anything to justify how you know anything. You’ve blindly accepted abject skepticism and you don’t even realize it.

>>22506320
Both of you are kikes

>>22515156
All the nazis online are trans

>>22514927
Here's an experiment.
Give a blithe glassy inobservant stare at someone else's math homework.
That discursive reasoning is not affecting you into its action. You only think what you think not what you could conceivably think. You have not read the books you have not read. Now taking all these obvious things backwards intension to the root interpolating underneat the roots if you will,
A rationale is easily discarded by the visceral gestalt mind.
The yogacara school of Buddhism practiced physical yoga as well. Those pretzel legs did not publish academic citations their way into position, they trained.

>>22515175
Here’s an experiment:
Answer the challenge of justifying knowledge
Fail (again)
Admit Buddhism thesis is wrong

You’re still not answering the question. How do you know what you know? You have no answer. You just keep restating that it’s self-aware, which is begging the question.

>>22515200
Yeah youre right I admit it. Western Canon Platonism has legs where this fails. Vegan broscience was a failed project.

>>22514674
Is this a bot reponse?

>>22515229
No, I'm quoting actual stupidity and a willful ignorance of facts on the dude's site as an example of what to expect from his "philosophy", and coincidentally why this thread exists to begin with. Christcucks are mentally ill.

>>22515222
Platonism has the same problem. It posits an impersonal absolute that renders knowledge impossible. Honestly, watch Jay Dyer’s debate videos. You don’t have to like the guy to understand his critiques and consider whether they’re right.

>>22515250
I would hesitate to even call it a strawman. It seems to me like a pretty accurate depiction of what a lot of people actually say and profess to believe.

>>22515250
One, learn to express your thoughts better in writing because I had no idea what you were even talking about. Two, what is wrong with that quote other than he rejects your blind faith in Le Science?

>>22515325
>what is wrong with that quote other than he rejects your blind faith in Le Science?
I'm not listening to a "philosopher" that doesn't even have the slightest grasp of basic, probable, observable, mathematical and universal concepts like complex systems or statistical mechanics, not to say anything of physics or biology. I'm sorry, but that's willingly ignoring the theories at the backbone of the devices bringing his message to me. I hope you can see the irony and can come to agree, if nothing else, it's self-inflicted, regressive, and quite shameful stupidity. I'll now leave you retards to it.
https://playgameoflife.com/

>>22515380
And yet that quote proves none of that it just goofs on the genius scientists who scoff at God and yet claim there must be aliens because space is so hecking big.

>>22515380
His whole point is that none of that shit matters if you can’t answer fundamental presuppositional questions. “How do you know knowledge is even possible?” If you can’t answer that question, then all of your knowledge about systems and whatever is absolutely meaningless.

>>22514835
https://youtu.be/oXfDF5Ew3Gc
even a low IQ subhuman like you will understand the video

>>22512611
>inbred Muslim arguments of "everyone being born a monotheist"
I think the "pure monotheism" meme is on par with that given there were single-deity pagan cults. Muslims have no concept of personhood in the deity

>>22513318
>tfw Keith Woods became a normie politics guy
>no more comfy schizo philosophy videos with Aarvoll
it's over

>>22505084
foot notes...

>>22505166
Jay isn't Orthodod either, in the traditional sense. he larps for internet cred.

>>22505084
>since WVO Quine it has largely been abandoned and replaced with psychologism and social sciences

Naw, academic philosophers are still doing philosophy, conferences still exist, books are written, etc.


https://quod.lib.umich.edu/p/phimp/3521354.0017.011/1/--ground-between-the-gaps?page=root;size=150;view=image#pagenav

>>22506351
>CJB
what a gloriously schizophrenic man

>>22505107
Then do it
you wont because you cant

>>22517138
Yes he is. His priest approves of his videos.

>>22505847
Because orthodox christianity is vaporwave.

>>22506342
Westerners would be a lot more willing to convert to Orthodoxy if the art and aesthetics weren’t so obviously non-Western.

>>22518808
It looks good though.

>>22518184
I mean in spirit and worldliness. he steers people away from hesychasm. and he does live streams in great feast days. it makes no sense. I feel bad for the people that take him serious. Lord have mercy.

>>22518808
being western is the problem. and it's not art. it's iconography. windows into the other side. you don't make that worldly to attract people.

>>22505107
You mean in this time if I wrote a book in the style of Parmenides, would anyone read it?

>>22514906
>That’s because the “Vedantins” don’t say anything particular.
Untrue
>You ask one of them and they’ll insist they are “non-dualist”. Okay, but what does that mean exactly. They will never tell you.
It's quite easy to explain how it's non-dual, Advaita is non-dual in the sense of propounding that absolute reality is free of all dualism, parts, plurality etc, and also in the sense that the innermost Self (the Atman) is completely identical with the infinite omnipresent Brahman.
>They endorse “non-dualism” because they know that dualism is obviously self-refuting
It's not "self-refuting" at all
>That, however, is not a justification.
Non-dualism is justified on the basis of revealed scriptures, and then defended on the basis of logical and empirical analysis
>It’s just a refuse to admit your actual position. The only “non-dualism” that is at all coherent is Christianity.
lmao

>>22514927
>> we know only through our own non-discursive awareness and can’t possibly know things through any other method
Literarily nobody said this, stop it with the gay strawmanning

>>22514998
>How is this a justification of knowledge?
It's a justification of knowledge because having faith that one's scripture is revealed means that one is accepting as an axiom that one's scripture reveals the truth about existence and provides valid knowledge in that way, if you accept this axiom then whatever the scripture teaches is automatically justified. Both Hindus and Christians as well as other religions both accept their scripture as being revealed and have faith in it being revealed, so this isn't really an attack that refutes one religion over another because Hinduism and Christianity have the same approach on this point.

>Also, begging the question “How do you know this empirical analysis is reliable”?
It's not a question of "what is most reliable" but rather a question of what is the most reasonable conclusion given the means and evidence that are available to us.
>“How do you know you can trust logical principles?”
ibid
See the problem? You’ve just re-stated that you know things. The question is “how do you know things?”
Knowledge is self-evident and thus doesn't have to be justified, so it's a pointless and sophistic pseudo-problem to keep harping on endlessly about "how do you justify what is obvious and undeniable" and to rely on that as one's main argument tactic, when something is self-evident then by definition its justification serves no purpose.
>You’ve failed to give any account for the possibility of knowledge at all.
That's not true, knowledge is possible at all in Vedanta only because of Brahman, the Brahman-Atman's own self-awareness is the primordial knowledge par excellence which all types of derivative and particular/differentiated knowledge presuppose and depend upon for their occurrence (both metaphysically and epistemologically). When Brahman-Atman exists, all else is made possible, in this way the possibility of knowledge is accounted for.

>>22514998
>The closest you’ve come is stating that knowledge is made possible via a “non-discursive awareness”
The claim in part or originally comes from scripture that Hindus accept axiomatically as revealed, just as most religions including Christianity do with their own scriptures, or in regard to key parts or portions of their scripture, I'm not doing anything here that Jay Dyer and most Christian theology doesn't also do.
>but again “how do you know that?” Your answer is “via my non-discursive awareness”. That is circular.
No it's not, this shows that you either didn't read or didn't understand the post you were replying to. As I already explained awareness is completely unchanging and it doesn't engage in changing cognitive acts like "understanding", the mind is what understands and the mind is different from pure awareness; so since the mind is what is understanding that idea and not awareness it's not actually circular in the way in which you are claiming, since something besides awareness is verifying something about awareness as best it can, where you are creating a strawman about "awareness understanding something about awareness" which has nothing to do with what Im talking about.
>You can State over and over that this awareness is self-aware and self-evident, but that’s just an unjustified claim of you can’t give some account for the possibility of knowledge independent of this awareness.
Wrong and wrong, that awareness is self-evident is already self-justifying from the very fact of it being self-evident (this is something that naturally follows from the very definition of those terms), and I also have given an account for the possibility of it based on scripture (which isn't this awareness) and in relation to analysis done by the mind (which isn't this awareness).
>You are merely accepting that it’s justified for no reason at all.
That's not true, I've stated that it's self-evident and thus without any need of justification, but if someone tries to do so they can find compelling reasons to accept it based on logic and empirical analysis.
>And worse yet, you’ve accepted that the only thing external to itself is necessarily illusory so there can’t be anything to justify how you know anything.
That's not true, because images and illusions can still communicate or reflect certain information that is fundamentally true.

>>22518992
>Whoah this picture is just like what heaven looks like! If you painted it any differently it would be hecka sinful!
Do orthotards really believe this?

>>22519662
it's spiritual and seen with your heart. not the human intellect of your brain.