you can cut the world into an arbitrary number of dualistic oppositions and learn nothing new from it except that language is a sword.
I would expect an infinite number of overlapping divisions as well as an infinite number of non-overlapping divisions. which ones you call up is dependent on which words you use to call them with.
-
-
they aren't equally meaningless though. just that the language you use to frame meaning is part of the frame itself.
-
Tweet unavailable
-
maybe. I'm definitely making a pretty strong (controversial perhaps) claim though it is fairly consistent with many systems of non-dual philosophy. I'm tweeting so trying to work with the limits of the medium but maybe it's not serving me well here.
-
the essential problem I'm trying to circumscribe with these slightly glib tweets is that of language and meaning. it's much too easy to assume that because you can phrase things in multiple ways that you are dealing with multiple underlying realities.
-
so your question "how many dimensions" is actually a really good one but I'm claiming that it's not the right first question to ask. the right first question to ask is "what is the phenomenon and how do we observe it and find agreement about those observations between frames?"
-
implicit in your choice of dualisms is that maybe there's less than 4 dimensions represented by these 4 dualisms. would you be satisfied to say it's actually 1 dimension? I'm trying to disrupt the language framing of this and suggest, ok, maybe there's 8 dimensions. why not?
-
I don't have a definitive answer. I think digging into the problem requires a heavy lift to cut away the language framing and not just being playing talking-monkey word games while circling the drain as our meaning flushes away.
- 5 more replies
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.