Posted: Sep 26, 2016 2:41 am
surreptitious57 wrote:Little Idiot wrote:
If I were jamest I would have would have answered like this
Numerically parsimonious is insignificant when compared to parsimony of types by which I mean the awareness of the objects
is one type and your ( supposedly real ) objects are a second type bringing in duality. Whereas explaining the awareness of the objects in terms of undivided awareness is not a second type ( since the individual awareness and the objects it is aware of are all hosted by it ) and remains a monist position
Not only is this metaphysically more parsimonious but introducing the so called real objects introduces a group of unnecessary questions to explain or account for the interaction between types. Unless there is some significant reason to assume this additional type apart from it sure looks that way then doing so should clearly be avoided
I love how you question the reality of objects while not doing the same for undivided awareness which you simply assume exists even though after fifty pages you have still to demonstrate this
Not really, undivided awareness is a model not something that I said is real. Did I ever say it is real, Or are you assuming I said that?
Undivided awareness is a model of reality - this is what I actually say.
Undivided awareness is a concept. I say that too.
All concepts must be dropped is another thing I say.
Undivided awareness exists is not something that I said (I believe ).
Undivided awareness is reality is not something that I said (I believe ).
See post 1000 just before your post! for evidence - me clarifying what I say about this