All I said was, she acknowledges it. The point being, to gesture towards ‘the atom’ as a purported physical fundamental unit fails to recognize the indeterminate nature of so-called sub-atomic particles. Anyway it’s off-topic.

Non-dualism represents the absence of a distinction that seperates reality into subject-object, appearance-thing in itself, becoming-being, nothingness-somethingness, necessity-contingency etc. In short, binary distinctions created by our langauges and thoughts dissappear — Sirius

This doesnt seem to accomplish an overthrow of the split between subject and object, being and becoming so much as it it represents the opposite pole with respect to external realism. The latter, like with Daniel Dennett, simply ignores the subjective in favor of the objective, whereas the non-dualism you describe throws everything into a subjectivist basket. Radical non-dualisms like that of Deleuze, Derrida and Heidegger put consciousness into question alongside subjectivity and objectivity, rather than elevating consciousness to supreme status.

Radical non-dualisms like that of Deleuze, Derrida and Heidegger put consciousness into question alongside subjectivity and objectivity, rather than elevating consciousness to supreme status. — Joshs

:up: :up:

Can you say some more about how Deleuze, Derrida and Heidegger put consciousness into question alongside subjectivity and objectivity? Does this come out of their critique of the binary/emphasis of pluralities?

↪Joshs Can you say some more about how Deleuze, Derrida and Heidegger put consciousness into question alongside subjectivity and objectivity? Does this come out of their critique of the binary/emphasis of pluralities? — Tom Storm

They see consciousness as relying on the idea of a persisting self-identity. An object is something that is placed before and represented to itself by a subject.

He is pure unfiltered consciousness with no hint of mental and physical attributes — Sirius

so much so, without attributes, Nirguna, that "He" is not even a He; not a she nor a they nor an It. Ultimately, as Existence Consciousness-Bliss, Brahman without attributes also has no will,

If l am Brahman, then my will is Brahman's will. But my so called "will" related to what doesn't happen is illusory, like my mind and body. — Sirius

And though the Upanasads have Brahman willing existence for "sport," Lila, that is Saguna Brahman. Brahman for discourse. But ultimately, discourse too is the illusory workings of Maya.

To "understand" Brahman within Maya, all of these discussions may be useful. But to access ultimate reality, Nirguna Brahman, this too is karma, clouding ultimate reality with Fiction. All of it, including this (i.e., my) pretentious depiction.

Only the living Body can access itself, that is, Brahman (as Atman, if one insists) and only by fully assimilating to the fact of the living being, being none other than Brahman, and to the fact of the Fictional nature of Maya, experienced by humans as the mind. To realize ultimate nondual reality, one must exert great pains at un-clouding mind and its experience, or, to use a more recent western term, becoming; and instead, by only being.