P7: Non-duality is an obligation to change the nature of rational thoughts.

[Anonymous No.10067981]

Hey faggots, I'm trying to extrapolate on this premise and I want your evaluation on whether this is shit or not. ({spoiler: its both shit and not shit as non-duality explains thoroughly but it is shit in general because my self-loathing tells me so:

"Non-duality puts forth the proposition that all is eternally one. It breaks the relations of things through assuming that which is unknowable. How can we know any single thing of that which we don’t know we don’t know about reality exists? Non-duality presents itself as the true world; unknowable, and therefore unable to scrutinize; how can you scrutinize or discuss this unknown? The unknowing is changed from being non-existent, to a concept in which all we know about it is that we don’t know about it, except that it exists, and probably as greater than the sum of the parts. We can not know it exists, it is nothingness as reference to nothing, yet it claims nothingness still has a construct beyond it composed of “nothingness”.

The nature of rational thought changes insofar this claim stands, one can argue outside the realm of the theoretical perspective as any perspective is to be nothing; dialectical theory can argue on the same level as the non-dual realm. All perspective can become contradictorily objective on the same level of abstraction, and therefore estranged from being able to connect to anything derisive of rational."

[Anonymous No.10067989]

>>10067981
Sry, too lazy too read all that but isn't non-duality a contridiction because non-duality means that it is not duality so it is still duality except it is not.

[Anonymous No.10067993]

>>10067989
Yes it breaks non-contradiction unless we need an introspective theoretical prespective

[Anonymous No.10068012]

>>10067989
>because non-duality means that it is not duality so it is still duality except it is not.
What the fuck.

[Anonymous No.10068036]

tl;dr reality is unknowable, life is nothing

good fucking post

[Anonymous No.10068060]

>>10068036
>When you keep trying to understand the world by studying only material things

[Anonymous No.10068092]

I revised it. Maybe it's more clear

Non-duality puts forth the proposition that all is eternally one. It breaks the relations of space, time, and causality after assuming a truth that which is unknowable. How can we know any quality or lack of qualities of that which we don’t know we don’t know about reality exists? Non-duality presents itself as the true world; unknowable, and therefore unable to scrutinize; how can you scrutinize or discuss this unknown? This unknowing the unknown is changed from being non-existent, to a concept in which all we know about it is that we don’t know about it, except that it is implied to exist. We can not theorize this nature of reality exists. As it appears as nothing substantial, this nothingness is in turn made with reference to nothing, it assumes this nothing has a construct composed of “nothingness”.

The nature of rational thought changes insofar this claim stands, because one can argue outside the realm of the theoretical perspective as any perspective can equate to be nothing, or have the substratum of nothing.

Theoretical perspectives are able to be scrutinized, and do not apply as a construct, or assume to know its originating substratum, for anything beyond the individual it originates from. To add the universality of non-dual principles to theoretical perspective is to reduce perspective to allowing it not to differentiate as on the same plane of the non-dual realm. All perspective becomes contradictorily objective and equivalent on the same level of abstraction if rising from the substratum which is the non-dual nature of reality, and therefore becomes estranged from being able to connect to anything derisive of rational.

[Anonymous No.10068097]

>>10068092
>I am a little rationalist, listen to me

[Anonymous No.10068177]

>>10068060
Which would make sense, because they're the only things that exist

[Anonymous No.10068299]

>>10068177
How do you know they exist? What if objects only exist in your mind as the idea of the object? What if the idea of the object is different from the inherent object in itself?

Piss poor effort there m8

[Anonymous No.10068395]

>>10068299
>muh noumena