looking at nondual logics

[Guest guest]

At 06:04 PM 2/8/01 -0800, you wrote:

At 04:26 PM 2/8/01 , you

wrote:

At 04:00 PM 2/8/01 -0800, you

wrote:

>nondual logic

>Explain, please.

 

A arises with B,

as B arises with A.

Therefore, A is not-A,

as B is not-B.

Because A is greater than A as it is also B?

 

Beck

Well, I was thinking of the logic of Tao,

and much Buddhism,

that for A to be A requires B to be B,

and for B to be B, requires A to be A.

So, A is B, and B is A, A is not-A and

B is not-B.

 

I think you're right, though, regarding

the nondual logic of Nisargadatta's quoted

statements, which, as you say seems to be

more along the lines of an ultimate A that includes

B, so that A is B, and is greater than B,

so that A encompasses B, but not vice versa.

 

From here, the second version seems to imply

a kind of causality. A can " cause " B, but

B can't " cause " A. This would seem a remnant

of dualistic thinking in the logic. Purely nondual

logic wouldn't involve causality (which requires

an independence of one factor from another).

So maybe that's what you meant by saying

Nisargadatta's logic gives an answer,

whereas a koan (which implies full acausality)

can't be answered.

 

There is a logic that undoes dual and nondual logics:

A neither is nor isn't A (like a stream you can't step

in once). Thus, A neither implies nor doesn't imply B.

 

With this logic, A couldn't be said to arise with

B and be mutually determining with B (or not-A),

nor could A include and transcend B (or not-A).

 

I suppose this would be the logic that ends

all logic of any type, either dual or nondual,

because nothing can be postulated or not-postulated,

not even a koan ;-) That is, there can't be said

to either be or not be a koan to answer.

 

There now can't be said to be an association

between a question and an answer, no relation

could be either affirmed or negated between

a question and answer, or hypothesis and result.

[Guest guest]

This wording gets pretty twisted (or my brain does). From where I can see

it, it looks pretty chaotic. Regardless of the arguments that go on about

who created what and whether reality is real, etc. I do see order to the

universe which implies to me that it does follow some form of logic.

 

An interesting theory I read once was that the so called physical laws are

nothing more than habit. The Universe works this way just because it always

has. It is nothing more than habit. Interesting but I'm not sure how useful.

 

Beck

 

At 07:11 AM 2/9/01 , you wrote:

> There is a logic that undoes dual and nondual logics:

> A neither is nor isn't A (like a stream you can't step

> in once). Thus, A neither implies nor doesn't imply B.

> With this logic, A couldn't be said to arise with

> B and be mutually determining with B (or not-A),

> nor could A include and transcend B (or not-A).

>

> I suppose this would be the logic that ends

> all logic of any type, either dual or nondual,

> because nothing can be postulated or not-postulated,

> not even a koan ;-) That is, there can't be said

> to either be or not be a koan to answer.

>

> There now can't be said to be an association

> between a question and an answer, no relation

> could be either affirmed or negated between

> a question and answer, or hypothesis and result.

[Guest guest]

As long as there is an order identified

by thought, what is beyond thought

will be considered chaotic.

 

Chaos is the ultimate order, for it is

from chaos that all we call order arises.

 

The order provided by cause and effect is

superficial order rendered by thought.

Acausal order in which chaos is

not opposed to order, is beyond

cause and effect logic, beyond thought.

 

Dan

 

>This wording gets pretty twisted (or my brain does). From where I can see

>it, it looks pretty chaotic. Regardless of the arguments that go on about

>who created what and whether reality is real, etc. I do see order to the

>universe which implies to me that it does follow some form of logic.

>

>An interesting theory I read once was that the so called physical laws are

>nothing more than habit. The Universe works this way just because it always

>has. It is nothing more than habit. Interesting but I'm not sure how useful.

>

>Beck

[Guest guest]

An interesting interpretation, Dan, and what appears to me to be a

violation of the Law of Entropy which states that, left alone, all

ordered things fall to disorder (chaos), not the other way around.

Comment?

Beck

 

At 09:36 AM 2/9/01 , you wrote:

Chaos is the ultimate order, for it

is

from chaos that all we call order

arises.

[Guest guest]

Not a simple question, really.

And I agree, it's interesting to look at this.

 

Entropy is one explanation for why there appears to be a direction to

time.

What is ordered is past, what is disordered, yet to come,

is future.

The tendency toward disorder is then considered as the inherent

principle necessitating time perception that has

directionality.

Also, biological life is considered as an organization that must

temporarily be able to intervene (for the duration of the

organism)

in the ongoing and ultimately inevitable " intrusion " of

entropy

" into " the ordered system.

 

I guess you could paraphrase Gautama by saying,

" temporal life, inevitably, involves stress and

resistance " ;-)

 

When we look at chaotic order, we are timeless and

beyond direction (including forward, backward, inside,

outside).

We are not looking at an external world governed by law.

Nor are we looking at an internal world that is lawless.

We are beyond the concept of law (thought, principle,

expectation) being either imposed (as law) or failing

to be imposed (lawless, random).

We are also beyond the concept of life as an organization

imposing itself " against " entropy, or

" against " death.

 

Here, there is neither directional time, nor anything to

be against. Hence, there is no " life " in the

conceptual

sense of an organism that resists and initiates changes

with respect to an environment.

 

When this reality is expressed in terms such as 'awareness',

'reality', ''nothingness' 'order', 'life', 'truth' 'god' -- it's

easy to

see that these terms are all misnomers. They all carry

meaning from the temporally organized version of reality.

 

When the negative approach is used, concepts are deconstructed,

but there is no way to indicate in a positive way " what

is " .

It's a " see for yourself " , " know first-hand " kind of

deal -- with lots

of questions raised about " who would possibly be there to

see

or know " ... so it's a kind of knowing without knowing

anything,

and without being a knower ... a knowing via being, unknown

and without existing

 

So to " see " that order, the entire universe, all so-called

physical law, arises from " this " , which thought

considers

as " chaos " , is no doubt a leap for any kind of

logic

which is based on projecting or carrying the past (law,

thought,

memory, expectation) onto/into the present (chaos, the

unknown).

From within that system of organization of reality, it's

an impossible leap, in fact.

 

It's not cause and effect, can't be -- not even a leap

into another dimensionality or frame of reference

(as no inside or outside can pertain).

 

But the logic of time, in which order is imposed on chaos,

as thought brings memory to bear on the present, always

suffers from a limitation. It is the limitation of the

ordering

of thought which must always separate past and present,

image and reality, and must always imply an observer

separate from " experience " . These divisions,

necessary

for temporal knowing, implementation of memory and logic,

inevitably demonstrate contradiction in living and

perception.

It is these contradictions that

are often termed " suffering " but could be termed as

" stress of having to resist inevitable entropy in order

to maintain duration " and the rationale for discussing

a nondurational truth that really can't be discussed

in words (which are, after all,

a temporally-organized form of communication - read by

accumulating and relating meanings in an ordered temporal

process - a representation of an order that is constructed

perceptually and logically " against " the chaos of

randomness

and nonmeaningful events and perceptions) -- yet

why not indicate, albeit in a necessary limited manner,

the *atemporal, acausal, unconditional*

that involves no stress, no conflict, and no imposition?

It invites a leap that the words themselves can not provide,

nor initiate, but can, perhaps, suggest...

 

Dan

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

An interesting interpretation, Dan,

and what appears to me to be a violation of the Law of Entropy which

states that, left alone, all ordered things fall to disorder (chaos), not

the other way around.

Comment?

Beck

 

At 09:36 AM 2/9/01 , you wrote:

Chaos is the ultimate order,

for it is

from chaos that all we call order

arises.

[Guest guest]

At 01:58 PM 2/9/01 , you wrote:

Not a simple question,

really.

Not a simple answer. Kick me in the ass the next time I ask you to

comment. :-)

 

And I agree, it's interesting to look at

this.

 

Entropy is one explanation for why there appears to be a direction to

time.

What is ordered is past, what is disordered, yet to come,

is future.

This implies the assumption that " in the beginning " all was

ordered. I find that a difficult concept to swallow. I have to ask the

question, " What ordered it? "

 

The tendency toward disorder is then

considered as the inherent

principle necessitating time perception that has

directionality.

Also, biological life is considered as an organization that must

temporarily be able to intervene (for the duration of the

organism)

in the ongoing and ultimately inevitable " intrusion " of

entropy

" into " the ordered system.

 

I guess you could paraphrase Gautama by saying,

" temporal life, inevitably, involves stress and

resistance " ;-)

So this is the ultimate and underlying " stress of life, " the

energy required to intervene in the process of entropy?

 

 

When we look at chaotic order, we are timeless

and

beyond direction (including forward, backward, inside,

outside).

How would we do this? True chaotic order will never exist as the process

of entropy is asymptotic? Not that we would have anyplace to stand to

look at it. :-)

 

We are not looking at an external world

governed by law.

Nor are we looking at an internal world that is

lawless.

Would internal and external exist at this point?

 

We are beyond the concept of law (thought,

principle,

expectation) being either imposed (as law) or failing

to be imposed (lawless, random).

We are also beyond the concept of life as an organization

imposing itself " against " entropy, or

" against " death.

 

Here, there is neither directional time, nor anything to

be against. Hence, there is no " life " in the

conceptual

sense of an organism that resists and initiates changes

with respect to an environment.

 

When this reality is expressed in terms such as 'awareness',

'reality', ''nothingness' 'order', 'life', 'truth' 'god' -- it's

easy to

see that these terms are all misnomers. They all carry

meaning from the temporally organized version of reality.

 

When the negative approach is used, concepts are deconstructed,

but there is no way to indicate in a positive way " what

is " .

It's a " see for yourself " , " know first-hand " kind of

deal -- with lots

of questions raised about " who would possibly be there to

see

or know " ... so it's a kind of knowing without knowing

anything,

and without being a knower ... a knowing via being, unknown

and without existing

I think I've lost you here. However, from what I can get out of it, it

appears you are being highly theoretical and/or speculative at this

point. I could easily be wrong, the waters are getting a little

muddy.

 

 

So to " see " that order, the entire

universe, all so-called

physical law, arises from " this " , which thought

considers

as " chaos " , is no doubt a leap for any kind of

logic

which is based on projecting or carrying the past (law,

thought,

memory, expectation) onto/into the present (chaos, the

unknown).

From within that system of organization of reality, it's

an impossible leap, in fact.

It certainly is impossible for my logic. :-)

 

 

It's not cause and effect, can't be -- not

even a leap

into another dimensionality or frame of reference

(as no inside or outside can pertain).

 

But the logic of time, in which order is imposed on chaos,

as thought brings memory to bear on the present, always

suffers from a limitation. It is the limitation of the

ordering

of thought which must always separate past and present,

image and reality, and must always imply an observer

separate from " experience " . These divisions,

necessary

for temporal knowing, implementation of memory and logic,

inevitably demonstrate contradiction in living and

perception.

It is these contradictions that

are often termed " suffering " but could be termed as

" stress of having to resist inevitable entropy in order

to maintain duration " and the rationale for discussing

a nondurational truth that really can't be discussed

in words (which are, after all,

a temporally-organized form of communication - read by

accumulating and relating meanings in an ordered temporal

process - a representation of an order that is constructed

perceptually and logically " against " the chaos of

randomness

and nonmeaningful events and perceptions) -- yet

why not indicate, albeit in a necessary limited manner,

the *atemporal, acausal, unconditional*

that involves no stress, no conflict, and no imposition?

It invites a leap that the words themselves can not provide,

nor initiate, but can, perhaps, suggest...

 

Dan

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

An interesting interpretation, Dan, and what

appears to me to be a violation of the Law of Entropy which states that,

left alone, all ordered things fall to disorder (chaos), not the other

way around.

Comment?

Beck

 

At 09:36 AM 2/9/01 , you wrote:

Chaos is the ultimate order, for it

is

from chaos that all we call order

arises.

 

 

Sponsor

www.

..com

 

 

[Guest guest]

>

>>Not a simple question, really.

>

>Not a simple answer. Kick me in the ass the next time I ask you to

>comment. :-)

 

I guess that means I shouldn't respond to this, either.

But, what the hey? It's all good ;-)

 

>>Entropy is one explanation for why there appears to be a direction to time.

>>What is ordered is past, what is disordered, yet to come,

>> is future.

>

>This implies the assumption that " in the beginning " all was ordered. I

>find that a difficult concept to swallow. I have to ask the question,

> " What ordered it? "

 

Here you are addressing the essential assumed

order of thought.

The fact is that thought is not able to comprehend any

basis for the assumption that is required for thought\

to function in the first place.

And by thought, I mean, the entire apparently

organized universe, of which human thought is

one emergent complexity.

The assumption is that there is a distinction to be

made between order and disorder,

patterning and emptiness, continuity and disoncontinuity,

organization and chaos.

 

 

>>The tendency toward disorder is then considered as the inherent

>> principle necessitating time perception that has directionality.

>>Also, biological life is considered as an organization that must

>> temporarily be able to intervene (for the duration of the organism)

>> in the ongoing and ultimately inevitable " intrusion " of entropy

>> " into " the ordered system.

>>

>>I guess you could paraphrase Gautama by saying,

>> " temporal life, inevitably, involves stress and resistance " ;-)

>

>So this is the ultimate and underlying " stress of life, " the energy

>required to intervene in the process of entropy?

 

The stress is the resistance to disorganization,

often addressed as " identification " or as

" belief in inherent existence " ...

 

>>When we look at chaotic order, we are timeless and

>> beyond direction (including forward, backward, inside,

>> outside).

>

>How would we do this? True chaotic order will never exist as the process

>of entropy is asymptotic? Not that we would have anyplace to stand to look

>at it. :-)

 

You can only do this at the point where all assumptions inherent

to thought's program are dissolved. Often, this is termed

the ending of ......... (fill in the blank with words like knowledge,

becoming, illusion, memory, time) and the opening to .......

(fill in the blank with words like being, reality, presentness,

timelessness)

 

True chaotic order is all that does exist, because

it is beyond existence and nonexistence.

Indeed, there is no place to stand and look at infinity.

How can a finite being look at infinity?

How can a finite mind apprehend this?

How can there be a position from which to view

that which includes all possible positions

simultaneously without having any position?

 

 

>>We are not looking at an external world governed by law.

>>Nor are we looking at an internal world that is lawless.

>

>Would internal and external exist at this point?

 

No.

They could not be established, nor

could there be a " mind " in which to establish

them, nor a " being " to exist or not exist,

which could have an inside or outside.

 

 

 

>I think I've lost you here. However, from what I can get out of it, it

>appears you are being highly theoretical and/or speculative at this point.

>I could easily be wrong, the waters are getting a little muddy.

 

It's not at all speculative.

It's immediate and total.

The words are used only

to facilitate opening

to/as " what is " --

meaning that thought's

tendency to restrict reality

to its own framework

and perceptual ballbark

is " negated " simultaneously

with " opening " .

 

It is questioning of the perceived

" intrusions of entropy " (which Gautama

addressed as illness, old age, and death) that

opens to awareness of the entire universe

as who I am, and who I am as beyond

the universe, being, and " I " .

 

 

>>So to " see " that order, the entire universe, all so-called

>> physical law, arises from " this " , which thought considers

>> as " chaos " , is no doubt a leap for any kind of logic

>> which is based on projecting or carrying the past (law, thought,

>> memory, expectation) onto/into the present (chaos, the unknown).

>> From within that system of organization of reality, it's

>> an impossible leap, in fact.

>

>It certainly is impossible for my logic. :-)

 

Yes, to any logic. And will there be the exposure of

logic, including memory and association,

to being undone? Will there be " allowed "

the core assumptions of logic to

be understood as self-contradictory

and released? (Not saying here " do away

with logic " but " transcend logics " )

 

Dan