I would claim that all philosophies involving intersubjectivity and non-determinacy, including all non-classical logic take something from the notion of nonduality. In their own spirit, such choices are themselves non-dual, so these perspectives share the notion not in its radical form, but only in part.

This includes a huge space 'right in the middle' of modern philosophy whose corners I see vaguely as:

• transpersonal psychoanalyic approaches from Jung to Ken Wilbur in an psychological direction,

• consensualist notions of meaning and language from the late Wittgenstein to DeSassure and Lacan in a logical direction,

• anti-objectivist stances generally considered 'nihilist' from that of the ancient Skeptics and Cynics to Neitsche's in an ethical direction, and

• by the standard models of quantum physics and a Kuhnian notion of scientific evolution in a scientific direction.

To put the relevant aspect I see in those contributions simply:

• (Jung/Wilber) If we are all part of one another, the duality of internal vs external reality, of self and culture, is just a matter of shifting perspective.

• (Wittgenstein/Desassure) If meaning is constructed by participation, the natural boundary between true and false interpretation is flexible, and dissolves at a small scale.

• (Diogenes of Sinope/Nietzsche) If genuine ethics derives from a culturally or personally selected sense of destiny, our shared rulesets are compromises we make with nature, that lack any real cohesion, may in fact not themselves be ethical, and again, break down in the fine grain.

• (Copenhagen QM) If none of our intuitions about the nature of space split our range of available models cleanly and still address the data, so that there is always a questionable area between existing or not existing, between being somewhere or everywhere, etc. then again, in any detail, we cannot be right about the facts and still truly understand what is really going on.

• (Kuhn/Feyerabend) And if our perspective on these things changes in ways that are not due to some direct logical mechanism, we are most right when we can handle multiple conflicting models at once, and sustain an ongoing sense of instability in our theories.

I would claim that all philosophies involving intersubjectivity and non-determinacy, including all non-classical logic take something from the notion of nonduality. In their own spirit, such choices are themselves non-dual, so these perspectives share the notion not in its radical form, but only in part.

This includes a huge space 'right in the middle' of modern philosophy whose corners I see vaguely as:

• transpersonal psychoanalyic approaches from Jung to Ken Wilbur in an psychological direction,

• consensualist notions of meaning and language from the late Wittgenstein to DeSassure and Lacan in a logical direction,

• anti-objectivist stances generally considered 'nihilist' from that of the ancient Skeptics and Cynics to Neitsche's in an ethical direction, and

• by the standard models of quantum physics and a Kuhnian notion of scientific evolution in a scientific direction.

To put the relevant aspect I see in those contributions that are lifted straight out of either an Eastern or a Hermetic notion of non-duality most simply:

• (Jung/Wilber) If we are all part of one another, the duality of internal vs external reality, of self and culture, is just a matter of shifting perspective.

• (Wittgenstein/Desassure) If meaning is constructed by participation, the natural boundary between true and false interpretation is flexible, and dissolves at a small scale.

• (Diogenes of Sinope/Nietzsche) If genuine ethics derives from a culturally or personally selected sense of destiny, our shared rulesets are compromises we make with nature, that lack any real cohesion, may in fact not themselves be ethical, and again, break down in the fine grain.

• (Copenhagen QM) If none of our intuitions about the nature of space split our range of available models cleanly and still address the data, so that there is always a questionable area between existing or not existing, between being somewhere or everywhere, etc. then again, in any detail, we cannot be right about the facts and still truly understand what is really going on.

• (Kuhn/Feyerabend) And if our perspective on these things changes in ways that are not due to some direct logical mechanism, we are most right when we can handle multiple conflicting models at once, and sustain an ongoing sense of instability in our theories.

I would claim that all philosophies involving intersubjectivity and non-determinacy, including all non-classical logic take something from the notion of nonduality. In their own spirit, such choices are themselves non-dual, so these perspectives share the notion not in its radical form, but only in part.

This includes a huge space 'right in the middle' of modern philosophy whose corners I see vaguely as:

• transpersonal psychoanalyic approaches from Jung to Ken Wilbur in an psychological direction,

• consensualist notions of meaning and language from the late Wittgenstein to DeSassure and Lacan in a logical direction,

• anti-objectivist stances generally considered 'nihilist' from that of the ancient Skeptics and Cynics to Neitsche's in an ethical direction, and

• by the standard models of quantum physics and a Kuhnian notion of scientific evolution in a scientific direction.

To put the relevant aspect I see in those contributions simply:

• (Jung/Wilber) If we are all part of one another, the duality of internal vs external reality, of self and culture, is just a matter of shifting perspective.

• (Wittgenstein/Desassure) If meaning is constructed by participation, the natural boundary between true and false interpretation is flexible, and dissolves at a small scale.

• (Diogenes of Sinope/Nietzsche) If genuine ethics derives from an inborn sense of destiny, our shared rulesets are compromises we make with nature, that lack any real cohesion, may in fact not themselves be ethical, and again, break down in the fine grain.

• (Copenhagen QM) If none of our intuitions about the nature of space split our range of available models cleanly and still address the data, so that there is always a questionable area between existing or not existing, between being somewhere or everywhere, etc. then again, in any detail, we cannot be right about the facts and still truly understand what is really going on.

• (Kuhn/Feyerabend) And if our perspective on these things changes in ways that are not due to some direct logical mechanism, we are most right when we can handle multiple conflicting models at once, and sustain an ongoing sense of instability in our theories.

I would claim that all philosophies involving intersubjectivity and non-determinacy, including all non-classical logic take something from the notion of nonduality. In their own spirit, such choices are themselves non-dual, so these perspectives share the notion not in its radical form, but only in part.

This includes a huge space 'right in the middle' of modern philosophy whose corners I see vaguely as:

• transpersonal psychoanalyic approaches from Jung to Ken Wilbur in an psychological direction,

• consensualist notions of meaning and language from the late Wittgenstein to DeSassure and Lacan in a logical direction,

• anti-objectivist stances generally considered 'nihilist' from that of the ancient Skeptics and Cynics to Neitsche's in an ethical direction, and

• by the standard models of quantum physics and a Kuhnian notion of scientific evolution in a scientific direction.

To put the relevant aspect I see in those contributions simply:

• (Jung/Wilber) If we are all part of one another, the duality of internal vs external reality, of self and culture, is just a matter of shifting perspective.

• (Wittgenstein/Desassure) If meaning is constructed by participation, the natural boundary between true and false interpretation is flexible, and dissolves at a small scale.

• (Diogenes of Sinope/Nietzsche) If genuine ethics derives from a culturally or personally selected sense of destiny, our shared rulesets are compromises we make with nature, that lack any real cohesion, may in fact not themselves be ethical, and again, break down in the fine grain.

• (Copenhagen QM) If none of our intuitions about the nature of space split our range of available models cleanly and still address the data, so that there is always a questionable area between existing or not existing, between being somewhere or everywhere, etc. then again, in any detail, we cannot be right about the facts and still truly understand what is really going on.

• (Kuhn/Feyerabend) And if our perspective on these things changes in ways that are not due to some direct logical mechanism, we are most right when we can handle multiple conflicting models at once, and sustain an ongoing sense of instability in our theories.