What you say is well worth discussing but I've become involved in too many conversations to pursue it far.

You say - "Which is to say, it must be possible that for every single thought, ever, by a human, its immediate negation does not necessarily follow?"

A negation is always required for a thought or concept. This is why the mystics say we live in a world of opposites. But there would be a way out. 'Man partake of the perpetual', says one Sufi sage wrily, 'but not by thinking he can think about it'. .

Of course, Buddhists will typically say that I have distanced myself from Buddhism "for the wrong reasons" or that my "reasons for having problems with Buddhism were poor". Always blame me, what else.

But there were also Buddhists who told me flat out that I had no interest in the Dharma and that my time would be better spent in other pursuits. — baker

Might it be true that you're distancing yourself from the people calling themselves Buddhists who you've met, rather than the teachings? I gained the impression that you had no complaints about the doctrine, only the fools you had encountered. From what you say they sound like fools to me. Even fools are allowed to become Buddhists. Perhaps you would like Zen. You don't have to even meet another Buddhist.

An interest in the Dharma is an interest in your own life and death, happiness and well-being, so I refuse to believe you're not interested, or that you're time could be better spent. However, it might be better spent in more congenial company, by the sound of it, and perhaps another tradition would be more appealing. . .

For me a study of philosophy must be a study of metaphysics, where metaphysics is approached as a science of logic. It's not nearly as much fun as listening to Miles Davis, but it does allow one to understand the philosophical foundation of Zen and see that it works.

Hello Francis Ray! Thank you for your contribution. — 3017amen

Thank you for saying this, since I often wonder whether philosophy forums are a waste of time. .

That is a very intriguing supposition. What do you mean by, unique metaphysical doctrine that is non dualism?

The doctrine of non-duality as expressed by Shankara, the Buddha, Lao Tsu, the Upanishads and so forth is not a proper topic of study for metaphysicians since it makes claims that extend beyond what logic can establish or even what we can think about. If we want to evaluate this doctrine in metaphysics by the use of logic it has to be reduced to a formal metaphysical theory. When translated it is a neutral metaphysical theory. This theory is accessible to any philosopher and is not at all complex but, to quote Michael Caine, not a lot of people know this. This is because most philosophers think mysticism is is not worth studying. . .

A neutral theory states that all positive or extreme metaphysical theories are false. We cannot know they are actually false by the use of logic, since for all we know Reality does not obey the rules, but we do know with complete certainty that metaphysics rejects all these theories for being logically indefensible. Thus Bradley tells us 'Metaphysics does not endorse a positive result' and Kant tells us 'All selective conclusions about the world as whole are undecidable'. These statements are equivalent. It is simply a fact that all positive global theories fail under analysis.

This leaves just one theory standing and this is a neutral theory, non-dualism and the Perennial philosophy. It is Perennial because it makes complete sense in metaphysics and cannot be refuted. It is the only theory the philosophy department does not teach.

If a dualist believes in the necessary phenomenon of subjective and objective truth, does that in itself imply a dichotomous cognition?

I don't think so. They would just be acknowledging two kinds of truth. Truth, for the mystic,would be Being, a consequence of what Merrill-Wolff calls 'introception' or 'knowledge-through-identity', aka 'Realisation' and self-knoweldge. Relative truth would require a duality of knower and known, but to assume this is the best we can do for Truth and Knowledge is dualism. A neutral theory denies that there are two things and this includes the distinct phenomena 'knower' and 'known'. By reduction this distinction would evaporate. Relative knowledge may be true or false but is never Truth, for to be a Truth we must know it is True. I think Aristotle says somewhere, 'True knowledge is identical with its object', for this is just a matter of logic, but I've never been able to find the quote.

The epistemology of a neutral theory states that Knowing is Fundamental. Hence the Sufi master Al-Hallaj was crucified for saying 'I am Truth, and not 'I know Truth'. The former is a statement of non-duality, the latter a denial of it. . .

Jack - Just one thing about dualism. In Western philosophy this usually refers to mind-body dualism. In non-dualism it has a much broader meaning. It is best expressed in the word advaita or 'not-two'. It is not just that mind and body that are not two. It is the claim that that there are not two phenomena. This gives us the 'One ' of Plotinus and the claim that Reality and Consciousness are the same unitary phenomenon.

Thus while the rejection of mind-body dualism opens the door to various other ideas, the rejection of all dualism leads ineluctably to mysticism and the single, unique metaphysical doctrine that is non-dualism. .

. . .

Western philosophy is a woolly phrase, but it may be characterised by the endorsement of dualism and the rejection of mysticism. This has nothing to with geography, but there is a correlation with Western Christianity, which long ago banished and declared heretical the esoteric or gnostic reading of the scriptures. Russell's 'History of Western Philosophy' clearly demonstrates this characteristic.

So I;d say 'Western philosophy' may be defined as the refusal to study the whole of philosophy. Heidegger defines it as a philosophy without the notion of 'Unity', which to me seems spot on. .

I have no interest in refuting Lao Tzu's vision of reality. I've never said it was untrue and I've acknowledged how valuable it is for me. — T Clark

In respect of its metaphysics you stated "I do believe it is not correct." This raised all my hackles.:)

It is my fundamental understanding that metaphysical principles are not true or false, right or wrong.They are useful or not in a particular situation. It will take a significant change in my understanding of things to change that. That's why I'm interested in following up on your ideas.

I don't understand your view and feel it underestimates both Lao Tsu and metaphysics, but I very much respect your open mind. It is a rare thing.

If I was defending him I'd point out that he rejects all positive and extreme metaphysical positions. This rejection is necessary for Philosophical Taoism, Middle Way Buddhism and more generally the Perennial philosophy. If you get this point then all the rest follows (eventually). .

Please note I'm, trying to be useful, not trying to force an opinion on you. I try not to do opinions.

.

I see we have very different ideas about what constitutes a study of philosophy.

y
Have you distanced yourself from Buddhism? — baker

No. I replied because you asked for 'anything else of interest', and so I tried to suggest your reasons for having problems with Buddhism were poor. . .

Hmm. The long post is not linked to yours, and the short one quotes you and you've replied. I'm a little confused. No matter.

What's your point? — 180 Proof

I assumed the OP was hoping for some responses, so wrote something a little reassuring. .

Why do you ask?

Where in the TTC does Lao Tzu suggest that his is the correct model of Reality? — T Clark

In order to see this you have to study his philosophy. Certain sayings require a specific model or descriptive theory. For instance, the statement 'true words seem paradoxical' are true only in a non-dual philosophy. This is the case for many of his statements. This is the philosophy you will have to refute if you want to show that Lao Tsu's description of reality is untrue. .

If you succeed you will be world-famous within an hour or two, since you'll have destroyed the Perennial philosophy. It isn't going to happen, but I think there's much value in trying to refute it.

What made me despair is that keeping the five precepts pretty much makes one a loser or at least a target for scorn in our society (and by many Buddhists as well, actually).

No need to worry. The five precepts are impossible to keep without Higher Realization.and impossible not to keep once armed with it. It all happens in its own time if you maintain a practice. In Zen it is not even necessary to think about ethics.and precepts. These sort themselves out naturally as insight deepens. As Sadhguru says somewhere on youtube when asked about this, addictions and bad habits can only be overcome by Higher Consciousness. Buddhism proposes that we should not be too hard on ourselves. The precets assume a certain level of commitment and realisation are already in place. Most people identifying as Buddhist do not keep the precepts, but recognise them as the natural outcome of the dissipation of ignorance.

Same in psychology. Some treatments ask us to adopt a certain behaviour in order to change our mind-set, some to change our mind-set in order to change our behaviour. . .

What made me hopeless about Buddhism is that its epistemology is, essentially, a self-fulfilling prophecy: first, one takes some premises for granted; then one acts in line with those premises; and then one "sees" that those premises "are true".

This is a misunderstanding. The route you describe is one approach. But it is possible to describe and prove the epistemology in logic, and Buddhism NEVER asks us to take some premise for granted. The approach you suggest is a practical method, not the way in which Buddhism explains or justifies its epistemology. Of course, until we know that knowing is fundamental we can only assume it, but the assumption is unnecessary to discovering the facts.

Even if you take no premises for granted you'll end up knowing the truth about epistemology.

The final straw was that some notable Buddhists that I knew were/are avid Trumpistas.

I share your horror. But remember that anyone can call themselves a Buddhist. I'm amazed also that any Christian could support this man, but then anyone can call themselves a Christian.

Two things: immaturity (18-19) and Zen was not philosophically interesting or engaging enough for me to commit daily to zazen. — 180 Proof

Pardon me? Nagarjuna is a Patriarch and lays out the philosophy. I struggle to see how a philosophy that solves all problems of philosophy can be uninteresting or unengaging.

Perhaps you didn't delve into the philosophy, as in Zen it is not emphasised. . . .

You say "I strongly reject the idea that the Tao Te Ching and similar theories stand in any privileged position for understanding reality."

I'm not sure what you mean here. I'm suggesting that the metaphysics of the TTC is a correct model of Reality, just as Lao Tsu suggests. It is not 'privileged', just correct. In mysticism it is the standard model, . .

I'm probably misunderstanding you, but If you believe it is not correct then I'll happily argue this point.

PS. The argument in Fundamental Wisdom is the body of the text. The original title was Fundamental Verses on the Middle Way, and the argument is in the verses. . . .

Great! You are now a mystical philosopher. Within a week or two you'll know more about mysticism than most professional philosophers. . .

I must apologise. I should have warned you not to rush out and buy Fundamental Wisdom. You may find it interesting but his argument is very difficult and tedious. All we need to know is that his argument has never been invalidated and it proves that all positive metaphysical theories are logically indefensible. If we know this then we need not read the argument. And we already know that philosophers generally endorse his result since it what makes metaphysics difficult. Kant, Bradley and Russell all reach the same result explicitly in their work, but all good philosophers arrive here since it is just a matter of logic. . .

The best commentary I know of is 'The Sun of Wisdom': Teachings on Nagarjuna's Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way by Tsultrim Gymaptso. I would avoid any that are written by non-Buddhist academics. .

His argument proceeds by listing metaphysical questions and showing that all their positive answers are absurd. The answer is never this, that, both or neither. He points us towards a fifth possibility, which is the idea that these questions are badly-formed and derived from misunderstandings. It is a logical proof of emptiness. . .

The connection with Lao Tsu is immediate. The statement 'True words seem paradoxical' is entirely explained by Nagarjuna. if we cannot endorse a positive theory then we must never make a positive statement about reality. To do this requires speaking in riddles. For instance, Heraclitus famously states 'We exits and exist-not'. As atomic statements both halves of this statement would be untrue and absurd. Together. they allow to describe reality with rigour. These words seem paradoxical. They are not actually so, however, and Lao Tsu does not suggest they are.

The claim that the Tao is unspeakable is also explained by Nagarjuna. If all positive theories are false then reality must be beyond conceptual fabrication and subject-predicate language.. Kant's 'thing-in-itself' has the same elusive properties.and this is not a coincidence. Nor is it a coincidence that the Buddha advises us to abandon all extreme theories. When we do this we endorse the teachings of Lao Tsu. .

The absurdity all positive theories leads western thinkers to the idea that metaphysics is impossible. It should lead them to a neutral metaphysical position but they don't often study this or even know of it since it is mysticism. Academic philosophers generally hold the view that Lao Tsu didn't know what he was talking about. I suppose they believe that one day they will prove this. It's a forlorn hope. .

So, I'm with you completely on the value of Lao Tsu. He explains metaphysics in fewer words than most people need just to define it.

. .

. . .

.


. . . .

I don't think it's a problem talking about mysticsim. but it may be a problem talking about the dire state of the philosohy department.

You have a point about the difficulty of communicating the mystic philosophy when it is not with an individual. For this reason I don't delve very far into the teachings and practices but just stick to the metaphysics, since this is immediately accessible to anyone with an interest.

My point is always much the same. It is to point out that philosophy is incomprehensible and interminable in the absence of a knowledge of the non-dual doctrine, This is the experience of all philosophers everywhere.

.

When I say 'solution' I mean a rational and reasonable solution that can be explained to others and that does, in fact, solve the problems. — FrancisRay

But to me that sounds like old-fashioned philosophy. I encourage you to share your solutions. — j0e

The solution is to endorse a neutral metaphysical position, which is the formal philosophcial justification for the Perennial philosophy and non-dualism. if you intend to look into this I'll suggest some book titles. .

Rather, on ideological grounds they choose not to study the only fundamental theory that works, or, at least, the only one they cannot prove does not work. .This is not rational behaviour but plain stupidity. . . — FrancisRay

That's a bold statement. But make your case, please.

I hardly need to do much to justify the proposal that philosophers should study the whole of philosophy, and not just the bit they prefer. If they could falsify or refute the view |I;m expressing then fair enough, but they cannot and don't even bother to try. I have no respect for philosophers who live in an internet age but cannot even be bothered to acquaint themselves with the philosophy of the mystics, at least well enough to explain what's wrong with it. I see it as an academic scandal and a betrayal of the public's trust. I don't even think that to call this stupidity is a bold statement.

But I would concede it may cause trouble on internet forums.:)n
. . .

. . . .

Good old youtube. For nonduality teachers on YT I'd recommend Mooji, Sadhguru, Rupert Spira and Osho, but there are many more.

I'm not sure the general understanding is improving, but since Huxley non-dualism has come out of the closet and mysticism is much better explained.these days.

As for mind and matter, Sadhguru's favourite advice for newbies is to spend time telling oneself 'I am not the body. I am not the mind'. What we are would be what connects and produces body and mind. . . .

"Elsewhere you have hinted that insights about reality come from the nondualist philosophies. It is my understanding that the nondualist paths, in general, emphasize that reason (logos) is misleading and that true insights about reality are gleaned only through meditation (direct experience with 'Truth', as opposed to experience mediated through logos)".

There are some subtle issues here. Reason is not misleading but, as you say, it cannot reveal truth. What is can do is reveal where truth may be found, and it reveals that it may be found in meditation and through the practices of Yoga. It is often thought that logic is misleading, but if you read the Buddhist sage Nagarjuna you'll see this is not the case. He uses it it to prove the Middle Way doctrine of the Buddha. It is just that logic has to be employed much more carefully than it usually is in Western philosophy.. . . . .

"Do you suppose that the enlightenment of the West (grounded in reason) is compatible with the enlightenment of the East (grounded in experience of pure awareness - or at least non-rational enquiry) are reconcilable?"

Absolutely. Their compatibility is demonstrable. But there's no such thing as 'enlightenment of the West' (or East). It's the same enlightenment in all possible universes. The discoveries of the mystics are in full agreement with reason and analysis. Their doctrine is the only one that works in logic. This is what Nagarjuna proves. It is actually fairly obvious, since academic thinkers are agreed that all the others don't work. It;s just that they don't usually study the one that does. . . . . .

"I suppose not, considering that perennial philosophy is a comparative study of mysticism and usually doesn't take western philosophical perspectives into account."

The perennial philosophy is a philosophy, not a comparative survey. It has no use for the persectives of other philosophies. The mystics rejects the western perspective on philosophy and this is why it is so much simpler and unproblematic. The (stereotypical) western perspective is dualism, and this is not defensible in logic. Metaphysics endorses only one theory.

If the universe is reasonable then it follows that logic and experience will lead us to the same truth, and mysticism discovers that both do in fact lead to the same truth, Thus the Buddha advises us, if we are doubtful, to give his teachings a lot of thought.

if you look around you;ll see that everybody who rejects the non-dual doctrine of the Perennial philosophy cannot understand metaphysics. This is because all other theories don't work. Either the Unity of All is a fact as the enlightened ones tell us, or metaphysics is incomprehensible. There is no third option and this is demonstrable in logic

Hence the low view of metaphysics in the West, where it remains incomprehensible. . . . .



.

. . . . .

I don't think you have to be a scholar, as long as one is a practitioner. But for a philosophical understanding of Huxley it would be vital to study non-dualism and a neutral metaphysical theory. Since Huxley was writing much has changed and these days one can find non-duality teachers all over youtube. It's a fascinating area of study, and the most important of all, so good luck.

In an academic context metaphysics is science of logic which uses a process of abduction (inference to the best explanation) by which we identify and reject theories that cause logical contradictions. Here 'best' means best by the objective standards of analysis.

I cannot show you here how the metaphysics of the TTC is provable in logic, but if you check out the Buddhist philosopher/sage Nagarjuna and his text Fundamental Wisdom of the middle Way this is the most famous proof. He demonstrates that all other metaphysical positions are logically absurd. (Just as metaphyscians everywhere discover). .

I think if you see what Nagarjuna is proving, which is the absurdity of all positive metaphysical theories, then you'll see that Lao Tsu carefully avoids ever endorsing one. Thus Nagarjuna explains the metaphysics of the TTC, and also that of the Upanishads, Middle Way Buddhism and more generally the Perennial philosophy. .

The basic point is that Lao Tsu endorses non-dualism, and this translates into metaphtysics as a neutral theory. This is the theory or doctrine endorsed by the mystics everywhere, and it is the only theory for which their knowledge of reality is possible.

You may have doubts about all this but what I;m saying here is not in any way idiosyncratic.There is only one metaphysical theory for which true words seem paradoixcal, and it is a neutral one. . .



. .





. .

I share your appreciatation of Lao Tsu. However, I feel you are misunderstanding his metaphysics.

For instance, you say " Part of that understanding is that the description of reality in the TTC is not true or false. It’s a metaphysical description."

If a metaphysical description is not true or false then it is meaningless. Some care is needed with the notion of 'true'. Lao Tsu's description is rigorous and demonstrably true in dialectical logic, but it is not true in the sense that it truly describes what cannot be described.

He say elsewhere that true words seem paradoxical. For the reasons given above some translators prefer 'Rigorous words seem paradoxical'. This means that a metaphysical theory may be true,(in the sense of rigorous) but only if it seems paradoxical.

His neutral or 'non-dual' metaphysical scheme seems paradoxical and speaking casually I'd say it is true. But in metaphysics, as in physics, we're not looking for the 'true' theory just the best. It is logical processs of inference to the best explanation. To know it a theory is true we would have to abandon metaphysics for Yoga and self-enquiry.

Unless we are a serious practitioner a study of metaphysics as a science of logic is indespensible to an understanding of Lao Tsu. if we know why true words seem paradoxical then we understand both him and metaphysics. It is only because Lao Tsu's metaphysical view is a 'true' model of Reality that true words seem paradoxical. He explains the language of mysticism and the Perennial philosophy, which is well-known for seeming paradoxical. .

Note that the statement 'The Tao cannot be spoken' fails his test for true words. Elsewhere he says 'Tao must be spoken', and only read together would these atomic statements be true. We must speak of it, but always be aware that our words cannot capture its true nature. Blblically-speaking this is why we cannot build a tower of logical inferences all the way to Heaven. When we try the result is the sort of endless babble we see in academic philosophy. .

His metaphysics is actually very simple. All positive theories would be false just as their failure in logic implies, such that the Ultimate lies beyond the categories of thought and speech. This is a neutral; metaphysical theory and in principle it explains everything.

This is the metaphysical key that unlocks the meaning of the Tao Te Ching. It is the doctrine that Consciouness is Reality and All is One beyond all division and distinction. Better known these days as 'non-dualism'. .

Pardon so many words. I got carried away. .

. . .

The reason it is not taught is that it is mysticism. Here there are no 'problems of philosophy'.

If the professors studied and taught the whole of philosophy then we would not be speaking of unsolvable problems. — FrancisRay


I stared a thread on this issue. IMO, we have the different (fuzzy) categories for a reason. It's not just mysticism that solves the problems of philosophy. Pain pills work too. So does a religious creed. But to be a philosopher is roughly to approach things 'rationally,' which is to take a certain ideal for granted. — j0e

Hi Joe

I am not a fan of fuzzy categories. I feel you are not giving mysticism its due since pain pills and religious beliefs are obviously not a solution for anything. When I say 'solution' I mean a rational and reasonable solution that can be explained to others and that does, in fact, solve the problems. I would certainly agree that we should approach things rationally, and it is my complaint against academics that they rarely do this. Rather, on ideological grounds they choose not to study the only fundamental theory that works, or, at least, the only one they cannot prove does not work. .This is not rational behaviour but plain stupidity. . .

Hi Jack

What you say makes sense but it explains what I meant about scholasticism. You say that you're not sure there is such a thing as a neutral theory, yet this is the formal foundation of the Perennial philosophy. This is the insanity of our education system. The only metaphysical theory that works is not taught in out universities or even understood. This leads the rest of us to assume metaophysics is impossible. In fact a solution is right under our noses. .

Here is a brief outline.

A theory that awards reality positive properties such that is is this as opposed to that is positive or extreme. All positive or extreme metaphysical theories fail in logic. This result is demonstrable and well-established and it is why scholastic philosophers cannot make sense of metaphysics. They reject a neutral theory because it is mysticism. This is what I meant by 'stuck in scholasticism'. .

If we do not reject mysticism but study the whole of philosophy then we have a theory that works and an answer for all metaphysical questions. These answers are irrefutable.

There is a complete agreement between metaphysicians as to the logical indefensibility of positive theories, and as there is only one alternative it is quite easy to prove that this is the only theory worth studying. Yet for the scholastics it is the only one they refuse to study. This leads to the daft idea that metaphysics is incomprehensible and Kant is the best we will ever do. In fact it's just a failure of scholarship.

For the mystical metaphysician Kant is a beginner. In academia he is a rare genius. It's a funny old world. A neutral theory underlies Bernardo;s non-dual Idealism and gives it a philosophical justification.

From your comments here I'd predict you're easily able to exceed the understanding of Kant. He identified the problem but we have to go elsewhere for a solution. If he had had the internet I'll bet he would have had no trouble finding it. .

I'm happy to say more but will wait for any questions.
. .
PS. I just noticed you're a fan of Huxley's Perennial Philosophy. In metaphysics this philosophy depends on a neutral metaphysical theory for which Reality is a Unity and Consciousness and Reality are the same phenomenon. This states that all positive fundamental theories are absurd because they are false. Nobody has ever presented a better explanation or even one that works. .


. . .

Books on this topic are rare and usually difficult. My own is in the editing stage

Immediately relevant are Nagarjuna's Fundamental Wisdom of the Middle Way., Bradley's Appearance and Reality and George Spencer Brown's Laws of Form...

These authors dispose of all theories except one. Then it's just a question of researching the one that remains. Regrettably I know of no book that does this in a simple and concise way. I'm trying to finish one, but meanwhile...

...You might like to read a couple of essays I have on Bernardo';s blog. Both are on the same page. One is about the marketing of philosophy, the other about Nagarjuna and his solution for metaphysics. Both are on the same page here https://www.bernardokastrup.com/search?updated-max=2018-03-03T18:46:00%2B01:00&max-results=7&start=55&by-date=false

They are not comprehensive but they explain my comments above. Good luck. The area between mysticism and metaphysics is not well explored in the literature of either, so it's every man/women for him/herself. . . .




. '

, ,

Jack...

I feel you're coming at this in the right way. But you seem stuck in scholasticism.

You say " Endless books have been written on these subjects. However, no one seems to have come up with any clear answers, and it seems to me that they remain as unsolved mysteries".

The problems are not unsolved, but to find answers you would need to adventure beyond the university curriculum. I cannot write an essay here but if you explore the idea of neutral; metaphysical theory you'll find it solves all philosophical problems. The reason it is not taught is that it is mysticism. Here there are no 'problems of philosophy'.

If the professors studied and taught the whole of philosophy then we would not be speaking of unsolvable problems.

Trouble is that in my experience the topic is too difficult for a public forum. .

So I take your point to be that if Saddam was torturing your family we should not intervene. Ok, duly noted.

What a damn silly comment. Surely you can see that it s silly. .

Your argument here is absurd and not worth engaging with.

hey're all happy to accept our help when it's their head on the psychopath's chopping block. I don't resistance to the invasion of Normandy by our British and French friends.

What has this got to do with anything? It seems to be utterly irrelevant./I have not suggested nobody ever needs to go to war.

Let's leave it. I won't be sticking around so you can relax. . . .

Saddam just moved in next door to you. Will you be calling the police, or listening to the screams?

This is an irrelevant question, as you must surely be aware.

The UK is in danger of having to do a trade deal with the US, and everybody I know is terrified of the possible consequences. We want nothing to do with your constant warmongering, military and political interference or approach to life.





. .

Oh well. I must retire from the forum I think. I cannot sit and listen to a bunch of people trying to justify the the arrogance of their behaviour and lack of comprehension of the world.

America Frst, and the devil take the rest.

Anyway, I'm being stupid to bother typing this because those who didn't get it then will never get it.

I'm surprised to find we disagree on this. I suspect it's very difficult for you guys over there to see the wood for the trees, so powerful is the 24/7 political propaganda. At least you might ask yourself why Britain was about the only country to support Bush's war. Why not more?

We must be careful here. I do not want to be rude to an entire nation, but I wonder if you realise the vast extent of the disgust for US foreign policy.

You can't 'invade' a democratic nation open to all- rather, that'd be stupid. Unnecessary.


It seem very necessary to me and it's been done many times.

The idea that the USA is a democracy is a game of words. It looks like a dictatorship to me.

Besides, as Churchill noted, democracy is the just the least worst form of government. It is not even always appropriate to the situation, as should be obvious.

If you note the supporters of war here you'll note they're not considering all the factors but just pushing an ideology.

Well, could be. I dunno, seems kinda obvious though.

Space. No weight, no mass, no shape, no form. Not meeting the most common definition of existence. And yet it's a real phenomena.

Math. No weight, no mass, no shape, no form. Not meeting the most common definition of existence. And yet it's a real phenomena.

Are these real phenomena? On what basis do you dismiss some phenomena as non-existent but real, but say these two are both existent and real?

REAL. Just not existent.


An idea that takes some work to get across where metaphysics and mysticism are poorly known, but utterly crucial to philosophy. . .

Yes, it is perfectly clear. The US et al waged a war of liberation. They successfully managed to convert a dictatorship into a democracy, something that racists/religious bigots said was impossible.

They took nothing, they asked for nothing, and they left. It was as pure as a war of liberation can be.

Tosh.. I don't know how anyone could deceive themselves so thoroughly and so refuse to face the facts. .

But no point in arguing. I'll let you get on with your arrogant assault on the rest of the world..

I happen to think we should invade the USA to impose regime change, and you seem to think it would be fine to do this. So my army has support on the ground.

If the Iraq invasion had been an honest enterprise there would have been no need to lie and cheat and invent fake reasons for it. Obviously.

The pattern is real, it's not a...?

You might like to look up mysticism. The idea you need is 'dependent existence'. .

This can occur once one identifies with the universe, rather than something anthropocentric. The universe dose not die. It would indeed be a shift in paradigm.

It would be, unless it is already ones paradigm. It would be to become a buddha or find the Holy Grail. . . .

he canvas being a pattern itself?

No. The canvas is not a pattern. This is its definition. If it were a pattern it could not be the canvas.