Guest guest Posted February 7, 2005 Report Share Posted February 7, 2005 Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " <anders_lindman> wrote: > > Let us investigate the idea of a new kind of logic that is not based > on true vs false, nor on fuzzy sets which although not limited to > discrete polar opposites nevertheless are based on rules building on > the concept of true vs false. > > The first axiom in this new kind of logic, which we can call Nondual > Logic is: > > AXIOM 1: Everything is > > The purpose of this first axiom is to go beyond the limitation of > traditional dualistic logic. But it doesn't. It's dualistic. Sorry. > AXIOM 2: Any statement including negations, such as " something is not " > is a part of what is. No, that's dualistic, and involves an absolute structure based on 'is.' > The purpose of the second axiom is to embrace the dualistic notion of > " is " vs " is not " and envelop them as a part of axiom 1. A false resolution, biasing toward " is " for no good reason, and that very bias is dualistic. > AXIOM 3: Statements about " true " vs " false " are parts of what is. > > The purpose of this third axiom is to inlude traditional dualistic > logic and envelop it as a part of axiom 1. > > ------------- > > In practical terms, this nondual logic states that everything is, and > that there is nothing that not is. A statement like " Santa Claus does > not exist " is a part of what is, and therefore exists. The statement > " Planet Earth has two moons " exists as a part of what is. Saying that > " Britney Spears is a man " is a statement, and that statement exists. > So we see here that nondual logic has nothing to do with true vs false > other than embracing such notion as a part of what is. What you say is only a start. Even saying " nondual logic " is dualistic. What about the nonlogical? What makes you think that setting up a dual thinking and contrasting it with a nondual thinking, isn't dualistic? -- Dan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 7, 2005 Report Share Posted February 7, 2005 Nisargadatta , " dan330033 " <dan330033> wrote: > > Nisargadatta , " anders_lindman " > <anders_lindman> wrote: > > > > Let us investigate the idea of a new kind of logic that is not > based > > on true vs false, nor on fuzzy sets which although not limited to > > discrete polar opposites nevertheless are based on rules building > on > > the concept of true vs false. > > > > The first axiom in this new kind of logic, which we can call > Nondual > > Logic is: > > > > AXIOM 1: Everything is > > > > The purpose of this first axiom is to go beyond the limitation of > > traditional dualistic logic. > > But it doesn't. > > It's dualistic. > > Sorry. It depends on the definition of " is " . > > > AXIOM 2: Any statement including negations, such as " something is > not " > > is a part of what is. > > No, that's dualistic, and involves an absolute structure > based on 'is.' > > > The purpose of the second axiom is to embrace the dualistic notion > of > > " is " vs " is not " and envelop them as a part of axiom 1. > > A false resolution, biasing toward " is " for no good reason, > and that very bias is dualistic. > > > AXIOM 3: Statements about " true " vs " false " are parts of what is. > > > > The purpose of this third axiom is to inlude traditional dualistic > > logic and envelop it as a part of axiom 1. > > > > ------------- > > > > In practical terms, this nondual logic states that everything is, > and > > that there is nothing that not is. A statement like " Santa Claus > does > > not exist " is a part of what is, and therefore exists. The > statement > > " Planet Earth has two moons " exists as a part of what is. Saying > that > > " Britney Spears is a man " is a statement, and that statement > exists. > > So we see here that nondual logic has nothing to do with true vs > false > > other than embracing such notion as a part of what is. > > What you say is only a start. > > Even saying " nondual logic " is dualistic. > > What about the nonlogical? > > What makes you think that setting up a dual thinking > and contrasting it with a nondual thinking, isn't > dualistic? > > -- Dan All word-structures are dualistic, so we have a limitation already. To define nondual logic with words is therefore possibly not possible. /AL Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.