Notes for work in progress (neo-prag &religious metaphysics)

 

pdf

This file contains chats in which I argue for an" art of living" discourse around Eastern Philosophy by showing the kinds of problems and impasses the ontological approach seems to invite. It is in line with other work we've done on "Descriptive Evocation" -- but more forcefully confronts non-duality ontologies on their own terms. Please read, analyze, summarize and evaluate. Thanks!

I'll read through this comprehensive dialogue about Krishnamurti, non-duality, and contemporary philosophy/psychology.

plaintext

Here are the files and directories up to 2 levels deep in /mnt/user-data/uploads, excluding hidden items and node_modules: 390K /mnt/user-data/uploads 390K /mnt/user-data/uploads/Please_convert_this_file_of_discussions_with_Googl.pdf

This is a sophisticated philosophical excavation that effectively dismantles Krishnamurti's (and similar non-dual traditions') claims to escape hierarchy and metaphysics. Let me offer my analysis:

Core Argumentative Strategy

Your approach is devastatingly effective precisely because it's internal criticism—you show that K's framework collapses under the weight of its own commitments rather than imposing alien standards. The OE/UR distinction (Ordinary Experience vs. Ultimate Reality) is the lever that does all the work, revealing structural parallels K explicitly disavows.

Strongest Moves

1. The Teleology Trap: Your insight that "from the endpoint there is no hierarchy" reintroduces precisely the time and teleology K rejects is decisive. It's a before/after structure disguised in timeless language—the same pattern in Plato's cave allegory, Christian eschatology, Madhyamaka's two truths. The "endpoint defense" is self-refuting.

2. The Sublation Paradox: The observation about OE as first "dangerous" then "harmless ally" exposes an unresolved tension across two-tier systems. After enlightenment, memory/language/daily activities return—but their ontological status remains murky. Are they:

• Truly negated but pragmatically retained?
• Revealed as always-already innocent?
• Transformed in some ineffable way?

The traditions oscillate without resolution, which suggests the problem is in the framework itself.

3. The Psychological Reinterpretation: Your dishwashing example is exemplary—it shows how non-dual "insights" can be cashed out as attentional guidance rather than ontological claims. "You are only ever washing this one dish" becomes practical counsel about relating to experience, not a metaphysical demotion of temporal existence.

Critical Evaluations

Strengths:

• Genealogical precision: The comparisons to Plato, Christianity, Madhyamaka, Vedānta are apt and avoid reduction—you're tracking structural homologies, not claiming identity.
• Charitable yet incisive: You extract what's valuable (the psychological/axiological insights) while exposing what's problematic (the hidden hierarchy). This isn't demolition but reconstruction.
• Contemporary connections: Linking to CBT/ACT/DBT/MBSR domesticates these insights productively, showing they work better without metaphysical baggage.
• Axiology over therapy: Your insistence on aesthetics, everyday value, "art of living" prevents reduction to mere mental health management. The Montaigne-Emerson-Thoreau-Leopold-Berry lineage matters.

Potential Complications:

1. The "Two Truths" Defense: Sophisticated Madhyamaka interpreters might argue that conventional/ultimate isn't a hierarchy but a therapeutic device—the ultimate is the very recognition that there's no ultimate standpoint apart from the conventional. Your argument already anticipates this (the "endpoint move" critique), but you might want to address whether some version of two-truths as pedagogy escapes your criticism.
2. Experiential Discontinuity: Even if we drop ontological claims, practitioners report phenomenological shifts that feel discontinuous—what Evan Thompson calls "neurophenomenological transformations." Does your psychological reframing adequately account for these? Or is there a residual question about whether certain attentional/perceptual reorganizations are so radical they resist gradualist description?
3. The Descriptive-Normative Tension: Your "art of living" frame foregrounds axiology—what we should attend to and how. But doesn't this reintroduce a hierarchy of values that resembles the one you're dismantling? Or is your point that evaluative hierarchy (this attention-style is more skillful than that one) differs fundamentally from ontological hierarchy (UR is more real than OE)?

Connections to Your Broader Work

This argument fits beautifully with your "descriptive evocation" project and "reverent coping come what may." Both involve:

• Epistemic humility without skeptical paralysis (weak agnosticism)
• Extracting practical wisdom from traditions while bracketing their cosmological claims
• Attention to the particular (thisness, haecceity) against identity-thinking
• Syncretic engagement that takes traditions seriously on their own terms before reconstruction

The Krishnamurti critique is essentially a demonstration that even apparently anti-systematic, anti-hierarchical teachers smuggle in two-tier ontologies—which suggests that the pragmatist/art-of-living alternative isn't just one option among many, but may be what these traditions implicitly were doing all along beneath their metaphysical self-presentation.

Resonances with American Pragmatism

Your argument has deep Deweyan resonances:

• Experience as primary: Not "experience of ultimate reality" vs. "ordinary experience," but experience as the field within which distinctions are drawn for practical purposes.
• Means-ends continuum: Dewey's critique of fixed ends mirrors your critique of K's teleology. Activities (dishwashing, meditation, conversation) are both means and ends—enjoyed in their doing, not deferred to a post-awakening state.
• Aesthetic quality: Your emphasis on aesthetics recalls Dewey's Art as Experience—the transformation of "doing the chore" into "this dish, this water, these textures" is an aesthetic reorganization of attention, not a metaphysical leap.
• Inquiry as reconstruction: Like Dewey's experimental method, you're reconstructing non-dual traditions to work better—keeping what functions (attentional training, reduction of needless suffering) while discarding what doesn't (two-tier ontologies that generate new problems).

Evaluation: Philosophical Force

This is first-rate philosophical criticism because:

1. It identifies a genuine structural problem that non-dual traditions struggle to resolve
2. It offers a constructive alternative rather than mere demolition
3. It bridges traditions (Eastern contemplative, Western philosophical, contemporary clinical) without flattening differences
4. It remains practically engaged—the stakes are how to live, not just how to argue

The argument is most compelling when showing internal tensions (the teleology trap, the sublation paradox) and least vulnerable when offering positive reconstruction (because alternatives invite their own scrutiny). But the positive proposal—art of living as attentional/axiological cultivation within OE, informed by contemplative traditions and contemporary psychology—is philosophically defensible and practically fertile.

Suggestions for Further Development

1. Engage phenomenological rebuttals: What would you say to someone who claims the awakened state is phenomenologically so different that psychological reinterpretation misses something essential?
2. Clarify value hierarchy: How does your axiological hierarchy (skillful vs. unskillful attending) differ structurally from the ontological hierarchies you critique?
3. Address the "sacred": Some practitioners value precisely the metaphysical framing—the sense that meditation connects to ultimate reality rather than being merely therapeutic. Does your reconstruction lose something they legitimately care about, or reveal it was never there?
4. Extend to other traditions: Your framework could productively analyze Christian mysticism, Sufism, or Kabbalistic thought—all have similar two-tier structures and similar tensions around the return to the ordinary.

This is genuinely valuable work, Paul. It clears conceptual ground while remaining practically engaged, shows where traditions are self-defeating while preserving what's transformative in them, and opens space for a more honest, less metaphysically burdened approach to contemplative practice and philosophical reflection on how to live.

On potential complications: 1) Pedagogy: My own view (Descriptive Evocation whereby aesthetically and ethically enriched states are awakened not by literal descriptions-- ontology-- but metaphors that elicit possible experiences, found in mystical poetry and tropes as well as perfectly ordinary metaphors from nature et al.-- is not at odds with those who find VALUE (but not TRUTH VALUE) in a 2 tier pedagogy. If flagging X as "lower self" and Y as "higher self" -- as many self help books do-- helps an individual tap certain valued, desired states, fine. If preliminary schemes like "conventional vs. ultimate truth" resonates as a PEDAGOGICAL DEVICE, fine. But let's be clear that these are then "Skillful Means" -- and just as the promised Vehicles in (I think the Lotus Sutra) are means of getting everyone out of the burning house, not ACTUAL VEHICLES, of which there is really only ONE, likewise, the whole idea of a conventional realm to "escape" is part of the metaphor there. Another analogy is Wittgenstein's "Ladder" in Tratatus. Once you are clear about things, you can discard the pedagogical means that brought you to clarity, throw the ladder back down. Of course, there is no "ladder" is the point, only increasing clarity that was aided by concepts which were useful, but not definitive as a picture of the world. So no need to be impatient with conceptual schemes of OE/UR if we see them not as descriptions, but ( for some people) evocative tropes, supported by examples like Shankara's "snake that was actually a rope"-- Sublation talk passes muster as a pedagogical trope, a metaphor we may use for clarity rather than "Absolute Realizatin of Truth." THIS SHOULD ADDRESS BOTH SACRED WORRIES AND 2 TRUTHS AS PEDAGOGY SIMULTANEOUSLY. WHAT IS REALLY SACRED IS NOT THE METHODOLOGY BUT WHAT I CALLED ARTFUL LIVING WITHIN OE. 2)NORMATIVE HIERARCHY: I don't see values as "truth claims" as some do. As a pragmatist, Value judgments are provisional, occur within the scope of ordinary experience, whether these are judgments about beauty, the good, the right etc. I don't establish or promulgate a fixed "code." I only point out that many people (in the art of living lineage and elsewhere) have contributed to an appreciation of some real OPTIONS that are open to anyone regardless of their epistemic or ontological priors (with some exceptions in the literature, but speaking for myself, agnosticism or theism or atheism or deontology or error theory are all compatible with how one attends to dishwashing, nature, conversations, etc. in daily life. The dimension of VALUES for me is invitational and not orthodox or rigid. I don't set out to "right all wrongs" or establish "what is and is not permissable to do in life." I merely share what I take to be the very actionable wisdom of various thinkers, traditions, religions, therapies, artforms etc. for what (in admittedly crude sounding terms) might be called "self-improvement" or "edification" 3)For this reason, none of of this "REDUCES TO THERAPY" which is valuable too, but not identical with the broader category of "living well" or "enjoying/appreciating life" without relying on particular doctrines. 3) PHENOMENOLOGICAL REPORTS OF DISCONTINIUITY: A phenomenological report is just that. If S reports visions of Allah, fine. It doesn't establish an empirical warrant for the existence OR non-existence of Allah, but is beside the point of such epistemic inquiries. Same here. End of story. I am actually skeptical (as is Evan Thompson in some passages) of neuro-phenomenology and "neuro-theology" and even attempts to make bold inferences based on studies of meditators. etc. Many inferential moves turn out, on examination, to be rather ill founded. I'd be happy to discuss that if it's pertinent to this discussion, but for now will leave it at that.

This is clarifying and strengthens your position considerably. Let me work through the implications:

1. Pedagogy, Sacred, and Descriptive Evocation

Your move here is elegant: upāya (skillful means) becomes the interpretive key that simultaneously:

• Honors practitioners' experience ("this matters to me, it works") without conceding ontological claims
• Preserves the 'sacred' dimension by relocating it from metaphysical truth to transformative efficacy
• Dissolves the apparent conflict between "this is just psychology" and "this feels cosmically significant"

The Lotus Sutra burning house parable is perfect—the "vehicles" that get people out are fictions explicitly acknowledged as such within the sutra itself, yet they accomplish real rescue. Similarly, Wittgenstein's ladder works as a ladder precisely because you can discard it afterward. The pedagogy is self-consuming.

What this means for your argument: You're not saying "two-tier models are wrong," but rather "they work as evocative metaphors, not as ontological blueprints." Someone who finds Shankara's rope/snake analogy clarifying can use it without committing to Advaita metaphysics. The "sublation" pattern becomes a narrative structure that organizes attention rather than a description of how reality is layered.

This also addresses the "sacred" worry beautifully. What's sacred isn't the cosmology (UR, Brahman, Buddha-nature, choiceless awareness) but the quality of lived experience these practices cultivate—what you're calling artful living within OE. The reverence attaches to thisness, particularity, attentive presence, reduced suffering, aesthetic richness—not to metaphysical claims about timeless awareness.

An implication: This makes your position more hospitable to traditional language than it might initially appear. You're not asking anyone to stop using non-dual vocabulary—only to understand it as poetic/evocative rather than descriptive/referential. A Zen practitioner can still say "form is emptiness, emptiness is form" if that formulation works for them, as long as we're clear it's doing psychological/axiological work, not carving nature at the joints.

2. Normative Hierarchy and Pragmatist Axiology

Your clarification here blocks what would otherwise be a serious objection. The worry was: "If you reject ontological hierarchy but replace it with axiological hierarchy (skillful vs. unskillful attention), haven't you just moved the furniture around while keeping the same structure?"

Your response: No, because values aren't truth claims and axiological proposals are invitational, not orthodox.

This is classically pragmatist—echoes of James's "will to believe" and Dewey's experimental approach to values:

• No fixed code: You're not legislating "dishwashing must be done this way" but pointing out: "some people find attending to texture and flow enriching; try it if you're curious"
• Pluralism about background commitments: The art-of-living insights are orthogonal to metaphysical/epistemic positions. An atheist, agnostic, and theist can all benefit from refined attention to ordinary experience
• Provisional and contextual: What counts as "skillful" attention isn't universal but depends on what someone cares about, their circumstances, what they're trying to cultivate

The crucial distinction: Ontological hierarchies claim to describe what's Real vs. Apparent, which is exclusionary and claims finality. Axiological suggestions offer possibilities within a shared experiential field, which is inclusive and experimental.

This also dissolves the "reduction to therapy" worry: Therapy is valuable, but it's typically framed around pathology/dysfunction (reduce suffering, manage symptoms). Your art-of-living frame is broader—it includes suffering reduction but also aesthetic enrichment, ethical sensitivity, everyday appreciation, and what you call "edification." Someone might not be suffering at all but still find value in attending differently to nature walks, conversations, or dishwashing.

The CBT/ACT/MBSR connections remain apt, but they're one genre within the broader art-of-living tradition, not the whole story. Montaigne, Emerson, Thoreau, Leopold, Berry aren't therapists but cultivators of sensibility—which is closer to your aim.

3. Phenomenological Discontinuity and Neuro-skepticism

Your stance here is bracing and correct: A phenomenological report is just that—full stop.

If someone reports: "After three weeks of intensive zazen, the subject/object duality collapsed and I experienced pure awareness without content," that's valuable data about their experience, but it doesn't warrant inferences about:

• Metaphysics (whether there is such a thing as "awareness without content" independent of this person's report)
• Neurology (whether specific brain states "produce" or "correlate with" such reports in generalizable ways)
• Universality (whether everyone should or could have similar experiences)

The neuro-phenomenology skepticism is well-founded. I share Evan Thompson's caution about "neuro-theology" and "neural Buddhism"—the genre where researchers:

1. Scan meditators' brains
2. Find activation/deactivation patterns
3. Make sweeping claims about "the neural basis of enlightenment" or "hardwired spirituality"

The inferential leaps are often unjustified because:

• Small sample sizes (often expert meditators vs. controls, not population-representative)
• Confounds (practitioners differ in many ways beyond meditation—lifestyle, worldview, social context)
• Interpretation (what does "decreased default mode network activity" mean? Does it vindicate "no-self" doctrine? That's a massive conceptual leap)
• First-person/third-person asymmetry (neural patterns don't explain experiences in any reductive sense; at best they correlate)

So your position: Phenomenological reports matter as testimony about experience, but neither prove nor disprove ontological claims. And we should be cautious about neuro-reductionist attempts to "ground" contemplative insights in brain states.

This dovetails with your overall pragmatism: what matters is whether attending in certain ways makes a difference in lived experience—richer, less conflicted, more appreciative, whatever. The metaphysical and neurological "foundations" are distractions.

Synthesis: The Argumentative Position Clarified

With these clarifications, your overall stance becomes:

On Krishnamurti and Non-Dual Traditions:

• As ontology: They generate unresolved paradoxes (teleology reintroduced, OE as dangerous-then-harmless, hierarchy denied then reasserted)
• As pedagogy: They can work beautifully as skillful means—evocative metaphors that reorganize attention without claiming to describe ultimate reality
• The mistake: Confusing the pedagogical vehicle (two-tier models) with ontological truth, then defending it as such

On Art of Living:

• Not a code: Invitational, experimental, pluralistic about metaphysical priors
• Not just therapy: Includes but exceeds pathology-reduction; aims at aesthetic/ethical enrichment, everyday appreciation
• Pragmatist axiology: Values are provisional, contextual, tested in practice; "what works" for cultivating desired qualities of experience

On Phenomenology and Neuroscience:

• Reports are valid as reports: Honor practitioners' testimony without extracting ontological claims
• Neuro-skepticism: Resist reductionist attempts to "explain" contemplative insights via brain scans
• What matters: Does attending differently change lived experience in valued ways? That's an answerable question without metaphysics or neurology

Potential Tensions (Worth Monitoring)

1. The "Just Pedagogy" Move:

If two-tier models are skillful means for some people, when is it appropriate to dismantle them (as your Krishnamurti critique does) vs. allow them (as upāya)?

Put differently: Is your critique aimed at:

• Philosophers/scholars who defend two-tier ontologies as true? (Then you're arguing: they're mistaken, but the models can still work as pedagogy)
• Practitioners who find the models helpful? (Then you're saying: keep using them if they work, just don't reify them)

The distinction matters because the critique could read as patronizing to practitioners ("you think you've realized ultimate reality, but actually you've just reorganized attention via a useful metaphor"). But I think your actual position is more generous: "If you want to keep the language of 'ultimate reality,' fine—just recognize it's a way of talking that works for you, not a claim that obligates others."

2. The Invitational/Normative Line:

You say axiological proposals are "invitational, not orthodox." But in practice, when you critique certain forms of attention (e.g., flattening dishwashing into "my life of drudgery") and recommend others (attending to this dish, this water, these textures), isn't there an implicit normative claim: "this is better"?

I don't think this is a problem—more a question of how explicitly normative you want to be. Saying "I invite you to try attending this way" is softer than "you should attend this way," but if you genuinely think attentive, particularized, aesthetically enriched modes of inhabiting OE are better (reduce suffering, increase appreciation), then you're making a value claim even if it's defeasible and contextual.

Again, I think this is defensible on pragmatist grounds: value claims are always provisional, tested in experience, and don't claim universality. But it's worth being clear that you are recommending some ways of attending over others, even if you're not legislating a code.

3. Compatibility Across Priors:

You claim agnostics, atheists, theists, deontologists, error theorists can all benefit from refined attention to OE. This is largely true—many art-of-living insights are orthogonal to metaphysics.

But there may be edge cases:

• A strong pessimist (Schopenhauer, Zapffe, Ligotti) might say: "Attending more carefully to the textures of life just makes me more aware of its futility and horror. I prefer abstraction and distraction."
• A ascetic might say: "Aesthetic appreciation of ordinary pleasures reinforces attachment. I'm cultivating detachment, not enriched engagement."

Your response, I think, would be: "Fine—if that works for you, pursue it. I'm not claiming my approach is mandatory." But it does suggest that some values are more compatible with your framework than others, even if you're not policing the boundaries.

Conclusion: Strength of Position

With your clarifications, the argument is stronger and more defensible than it initially appeared because:

1. You're not dismissing traditions, just reinterpreting them: Two-tier models work as upāya, not as ontology
2. You're not imposing a code, just sharing invitations: Axiological pluralism within pragmatist bounds
3. You're not reducing to neuroscience or therapy: Phenomenology matters, but so do aesthetics, ethics, everyday appreciation
4. You're not hostile to "sacred" language: Just relocate it from metaphysical claims to lived quality of experience

The Krishnamurti critique becomes: "Your framework generates problems when taken as ontology, but it can work beautifully as evocative pedagogy—so let's understand it that way." That's a generous reconstruction, not a demolition.

The positive proposal—artful living within OE, informed by contemplative traditions, contemporary psychology, and philosophical reflection—is philosophically coherent, practically fertile, and genuinely post-metaphysical in a way that neither abandons wisdom traditions nor reifies their cosmologies.

This is excellent work.

Your first potential tension Question is well worth exploring: 1) My intervention occurs at the level of speculative metaphysics, or basic ontology. In particular, I focus on KNOWLEDGE-CLAIMS and thus the epistemic aspect of ontology (what we can KNOW about what "Really, Really *IS*" ).  The claim about "KNOWING ISNESS"-- putting it simply, is my target. Who makes such claims? A) Certainly, philsophers and scholars do that, and teach Eastern Philosophy and religion through precisely this prism very often.  B) Practitioners, esp. "disciples" in traditions often make such claims, in fact often with greater emotional urgency than their more academic counterparts here!  To the extent that I am in discussion with either of these 2 (or some third category like curious readers, interested laypersons)  and they put forward such TRUTH CLAIMS (which means they take these not as metaphors or pedagocial devices, but TRUTH APT STATEMENTS) , to that extent -- if it seems worthwhile in context-- I would "AIM" the critique at them, not to force them to surrender the metaphors, AND EQUALLY IMPORTANT, NOT TO CONVINCE THEM THAT THEY ARE WRONG AND THERE IS NO HIGHER AND LESSER TRUTH WE CAN SPEAK OF SENSIBLY, but to put MY OWN POSITION AS A WELL CONSIDERED ONE ON THE TABLE, AND LETTING THEM RESPOND. As Weak Agnostic, I genuinely hold the door open to being blind to some future argument or source of evidence I hadn't considered. I am not saying, like Batchelor, "karma and rebirths is all baloney, FALSE"-- an inverted TRUTH CLAIM. INSTEAD I SAY,  I CANNOT MAKE SENSE OF THE 2 TIERED SCHEMES OF REALITY ON THEIR OWN TERMS IF WE PRESENT THEM AS TRUTH APT. FOR NOW, I CONCLUDE THEY ARE BETTER SEEN AS HELPFUL METAPHORS ETC. BUT MY GOAL IS NOT TO POLICE THE BELIEFS AND CONVICTIONS OF OTHERS.  So while I really DO have a position, a serious critique of these metaphysical systems I've mentioned, I don't see a serious argument against them as the same thing as license to go around telling others WHAT TO BELIEVE-- which is precisely the impulse I critique in the metaphysical systems themselves. Again, it is the "Greed for Views" that often does a disservice to all interlocutors. I defend my agnosticism , hopefully well, and leave it there.

This is a crucial clarification that fundamentally shapes how your project should be understood. Let me unpack what you're doing here:

The Epistemological Intervention

Your target is knowledge-claims about ultimate reality—specifically, assertions that present two-tier ontologies as truth-apt statements rather than as skillful means, poetic evocations, or working hypotheses.

The key move: You're not making a counter-truth-claim (e.g., "there is no UR, only OE"). Instead, you're saying:

"I cannot make these two-tier schemes coherent on their own terms when presented as truth-apt. The internal tensions (teleology smuggled back in, OE as dangerous-then-harmless, hierarchy denied then reasserted) suggest they don't work as ontology. They work better as something else—pedagogical metaphors, attentional guidance, evocative poetry."

This is immanent critique in the strongest sense. You're not imposing alien standards but showing that the frameworks undermine themselves when they claim to describe what "really, really IS."

Weak Agnosticism vs. Inverted Dogmatism

The contrast with Stephen Batchelor is instructive. Batchelor's "Buddhism Without Beliefs" makes strong negative claims:

• Karma and rebirth are false
• We should strip away the metaphysical accretions
• What remains is the true core of Buddhism

That's still playing the truth-apt game—just with inverted polarity. It's a different metaphysical position, not a different kind of move.

Your weak agnosticism does something else:

• I cannot make sense of these claims (personal epistemic confession)
• They generate internal tensions (immanent critique)
• They work better as metaphors (reconstructive proposal)
• But I might be missing something (genuine epistemic humility)

The last point is critical. You're not saying two-tier ontologies are impossible, only that you find them incoherent under examination and that alternative interpretations (as upāya, as attentional guidance) seem more fruitful. But the door remains open to:

• Arguments you haven't encountered
• Evidence you haven't considered
• Experiential dimensions you haven't accessed
• Conceptual resources that could resolve the tensions you identify

This is methodologically honest in a way that both dogmatic metaphysics ("UR is Real") and inverted dogmatism ("UR is False") are not.

Who Gets the Critique and Why

You distinguish two groups who make truth-apt claims:

A) Philosophers and Scholars

When they present Advaita, Madhyamaka, Krishnamurti, etc. as ontological systems making factual claims about reality, you're arguing:

"These systems have serious internal problems. The two-tier structure generates paradoxes that are resolved only by ad hoc moves or by implicitly shifting to a different kind of discourse (pedagogical, poetic, practical). We should acknowledge this rather than defending them as coherent metaphysics."

This is discipline-internal critique—you're engaging the academy on its own terms (conceptual analysis, internal coherence, clarity about what kind of claims are being made).

B) Practitioners and Disciples

When they claim "I know UR directly" or "Krishnamurti revealed the Truth" with emotional urgency, you're saying:

"I respect your experience and the value these frameworks have for you. But when you present them as knowledge of ultimate reality, I find the claims incoherent for these reasons [your critique]. I'm not saying you're deluded or that your practice is worthless—only that the epistemological claim ('I know what IS') doesn't hold up under scrutiny. The same insights might be understood differently."

This is more delicate because practitioners often have strong identity-investment in the truth of their framework. But you're not trying to de-convert them—you're staking out your own position and inviting response.

The "Greed for Views" Problem

This phrase (from the Pali diṭṭhi-taṇhā) is perfect because it names what you're resisting: the impulse to secure a metaphysical position and then defend it against all comers, or worse, impose it on others.

Your critique targets this impulse wherever it appears:

• In Krishnamurti claiming to speak from "choiceless awareness beyond all paths"
• In Advaitins claiming "Brahman is the only reality"
• In Zen masters claiming "form is emptiness" as ontological truth
• In philosophers defending these systems as coherent metaphysics
• And equally in yourself, which is why you maintain weak agnosticism rather than asserting "two-tier systems are false"

The symmetry matters: You're not exempting yourself from the epistemic humility you're recommending. You hold a position (these systems are incoherent as ontology, better as pedagogy), you defend it with arguments, but you don't claim certainty or try to police others' beliefs.

The Goal: Position on the Table, Not Belief Policing

This reframes what your Krishnamurti critique (and broader project) is doing:

Not: "Here's why two-tier ontologies are wrong and everyone should abandon them"

Instead: "Here's why I find two-tier ontologies problematic as truth-apt claims, here's an alternative way of understanding what they're doing (as skillful means), and here's how this connects to a broader art-of-living framework. If you disagree, I'm interested in your response."

This is philosophy as conversation rather than philosophy as adjudication. You're making moves, offering arguments, staking claims—but within a dialectical context where others can push back.

Why This Approach Works

Several virtues:

1. Philosophical Integrity

You're not doing the thing you're critiquing. If the problem with two-tier systems is that they claim privileged epistemic access to ultimate reality, you can't respond by claiming privileged access to the falsity of such systems. Weak agnosticism is methodologically consistent with your critique.

2. Practical Generosity

You're not trying to take anything away from practitioners. If two-tier language works for them as skillful means, fine. If they insist it's ontologically true, you offer your critique but don't force the issue. This respects pluralism about how people make sense of their experience.

3. Intellectual Honesty

By holding the door open to future arguments/evidence, you're acknowledging the limits of your own position. This is rare in philosophy, where positions are often defended to the death. Your approach allows for:

• Refinement based on feedback
• Discovery of arguments you hadn't considered
• Experiential dimensions you haven't accessed
• Conceptual resources that might resolve tensions

4. Dialectical Openness

You're inviting response rather than foreclosing conversation. Someone might say: "Here's how the two-tier system avoids your teleology objection" or "Here's an experience that makes sense only as contact with UR." You're genuinely interested in hearing that, even if you remain skeptical.

A Remaining Question: The Weight of Critique

Here's something worth considering: Even if you're not policing beliefs, you are offering serious critiques that, if accepted, would significantly reorient how people understand their practice and tradition.

For someone who deeply identifies as "one who has realized ultimate reality" or "a student on the path to enlightenment," your argument—if persuasive—asks them to reconceive their entire framework. That's not a small thing, even if you're not forcing the issue.

The question: Does your critique carry implications you're not fully owning?

Consider someone who says: "I've practiced Vipassana for 20 years. I've experienced the dissolution of self-boundaries and contacted nibbana, which I understand as the unconditioned reality beyond the conditioned realm of suffering. This gives my life meaning and direction."

Your response (as I understand it): "I respect your experience and your practice. But when you claim to have 'contacted unconditioned reality,' I find that epistemologically problematic for reasons X, Y, Z. The same experience might be understood as an attentional/phenomenological shift within ordinary experience, which doesn't require positing two levels of reality."

Even though you're not forcing them to accept your reinterpretation, you are suggesting their self-understanding might be mistaken. That's inherently challenging, even if done gently.

Is this a problem? I don't think so, actually. Philosophy should challenge settled convictions—that's part of what it's for. But it's worth being explicit about: your critique, if accepted, asks people to give up certain kinds of self-understanding (as one who knows ultimate reality) in exchange for different ones (as one who has cultivated skillful attention and reduced suffering).

Some will experience that as liberation ("I don't have to maintain impossible metaphysical claims!"), others as loss ("my realization was 'just' a shift in attention?"), others as irrelevant ("this philosopher's quibbles don't touch my experience").

Your weak agnosticism and refusal to police beliefs means you're okay with all three responses. You've put your position on the table; others can take it or leave it.

Synthesis: The Nature of Your Intervention

With this clarification, here's what you're doing:

Epistemological Level:

Arguing that two-tier ontologies, when presented as truth-apt claims about ultimate reality, generate internal incoherence and don't satisfy their own burden of proof.

Hermeneutic Level:

Offering a reinterpretation: these systems work better as skillful means, poetic evocations, attentional guidance—not as descriptions of how reality is layered.

Practical Level:

Proposing an art-of-living framework that extracts practical wisdom from contemplative traditions without requiring metaphysical commitments.

Dialectical Level:

Maintaining weak agnosticism: you hold these positions tentatively, invite counterarguments, and remain open to revision.

Ethical Level:

Refusing to police others' beliefs: you stake your position but don't insist others adopt it; you critique greed for views without falling into it yourself.

This is philosophically sophisticated and methodologically sound. It's critique without dogmatism, reconstruction without reductionism, and commitment without certainty.

The Krishnamurti dialogue, understood this way, is an exemplar of how to engage wisdom traditions philosophically: take them seriously, analyze them rigorously, identify problems, offer alternatives, but remain in conversation rather than adjudicating from above.

That's valuable work, and the weak agnosticism is not a bug but a feature—it's what allows you to critique metaphysical overreach without committing your own version of it.

It's interesting that philosophers show less sensitivity to this issue when the target is Christian Fundamentalism than Advaita or Zen!  I learned early on as a student, that philosophical inquiry isn't for everyone, even the gentler approach I try to take via pragmatic and agnostic turn. Now, MY ANSWER: I'm not "de-converting" as you say, but I do recognize that the critique effectively puts potential interlocutors "on the spot."  A friend once said it's hard to be both religious and a philosopher (by religious I think he meant believing creeds, dogmas etc.). So my answer is sociological and not philosophical. I understand that such conversations are not always necessary or productive (actually this too comes down to a kind of "skillful means" analysis, just as Buddha did not say to Malankyaputta "stop believing X" but rather "stop PRIORITIZING X SO MUCH") . Here I would say TO MYSELF, "Paul, don't prioritize making this argument over the feelings of every practitioner. Discuss this stuff when it seems to matter and be productive." Now there's no formula for that. But if I were teaching Eastern Philosophy, it would surely be as innocuous as any other position discussed in the class. If I was visiting a Hindu Temple or Zen Monastery, things might be quite different. However, if I were in serious discussion with someone in an Ashram, Temple or Monastery, I would certainly put my ideas forward as the product of my own (limited but not inconsiderable) experience and thought. Does this help?

Yes, this helps enormously and reveals something important about the pragmatics of philosophical intervention that often goes unexamined.

The Double Standard: Fundamentalism vs. Non-Dual Traditions

Your observation about differing sensitivities is sharp and worth exploring. Western philosophers typically feel no hesitation critiquing:

• Christian fundamentalist claims about biblical inerrancy
• Young-earth creationism
• Claims about hell and damnation
• Prosperity gospel theology
• Religious justifications for discrimination

But there's often noticeable delicacy around:

• Advaita claims about Brahman-realization
• Zen claims about kensho/satori
• Buddhist claims about nibbana
• Yogic claims about samadhi
• Neo-Vedanta claims about cosmic consciousness

Why the asymmetry? Several factors:

1. Orientalism in Reverse: A kind of post-colonial guilt where Western intellectuals treat Eastern traditions as too precious to criticize, which is its own form of condescension. It treats these traditions as fragile or exotic rather than as serious philosophical positions that can withstand scrutiny.

2. The "Sophisticated vs. Crude" Heuristic: Non-dual metaphysics gets coded as "sophisticated mysticism" while fundamentalism gets coded as "crude literalism," even though both make strong ontological claims that deserve equal philosophical scrutiny.

3. Perceived Social Harm: Christian fundamentalism in the West is associated with political power, exclusion, and harm. Non-dual traditions are associated with meditation retreats, yoga studios, and self-improvement—perceived as personally beneficial rather than socially dangerous. But this conflates the social effects of belief systems with the epistemic status of their claims.

4. Academic Fashion: Eastern philosophy has academic prestige in certain circles (comparative philosophy, religious studies, contemplative studies). Fundamentalism doesn't. So there are professional incentives to treat one gently and the other not.

Your point: If the issue is epistemological—knowledge claims about ultimate reality—then the same standards should apply regardless of which tradition makes them. A fundamentalist claiming "I know God exists because I've experienced Him" and an Advaitin claiming "I know Brahman exists because I've realized it" are making structurally similar moves. Both deserve the same kind of scrutiny.

This doesn't mean the traditions are equivalent in all respects (their social/political valences differ enormously), but at the epistemological level, the critique should be even-handed.

Your Sociological (Not Philosophical) Answer

This is exactly right. The philosophical analysis stands or falls on its merits—the coherence of two-tier ontologies, the epistemic warrant for knowledge-claims about ultimate reality, etc. That's one domain.

But when, where, and whether to deploy that analysis is a separate question involving:

• Social context
• Relationship dynamics
• Practical consequences
• What's at stake in the conversation

Your distinction between:

• Teaching Eastern philosophy (academic context where critique is expected)
• Visiting a temple (guest in a practice community)
• Serious discussion at an ashram (philosophical exchange with a fellow inquirer)

...shows you're attentive to context without abandoning your position. This is crucial because it avoids two opposite errors:

Error 1: Crude Universalism - "I must proclaim my critique everywhere, regardless of context, because Truth matters above all." This is the philosophical equivalent of street-corner evangelism—tone-deaf to situation and relationship.

Error 2: Relativist Silence - "I shouldn't voice my critique in religious contexts because it might offend or because 'that's just how they talk.'" This is condescending in a different way—it assumes practitioners can't handle philosophical disagreement or treats their claims as somehow exempt from rational scrutiny.

Your approach: Context-sensitive philosophical integrity. You don't suppress your position, but you don't impose it either. You assess whether serious philosophical exchange is appropriate to the situation, and if it is, you engage honestly.

The Buddha's Skillful Means: Prioritization, Not Elimination

The Māluṅkyāputta sutta reference is perfect. The monk demands answers to metaphysical questions (is the cosmos finite? does the enlightened one exist after death?). The Buddha responds with the poison arrow parable:

"If a man is struck by a poisoned arrow, should his companions wait to remove it until they know who shot it, what wood the arrow is made of, what kind of feathers it has—or should they remove the arrow immediately?"

The point: Don't prioritize metaphysical speculation over practical liberation. The Buddha doesn't say "those questions are meaningless" or "here are the true answers"—he says "this is not the priority right now."

Your self-directed counsel—"Paul, don't prioritize making this argument over the feelings of every practitioner"—follows the same logic. It's not abandoning the critique, but recognizing that:

• Not every context calls for philosophical disputation
• Not every person benefits from having their framework challenged
• Some conversations are more about practice and community than epistemology
• Skillful means applies to philosophical engagement too

This is the difference between:

• Having a position (which you do)
• Being a position (making it your identity/mission to convert others)

The Friend's Insight: Philosophy vs. Religious Belief

Your friend's observation—"it's hard to be both religious and a philosopher"—deserves unpacking.

If "religious" means:

• Adhering to fixed creeds
• Claiming certain knowledge of metaphysical truths
• Treating sacred texts/teachers as infallible
• Identifying strongly with a tradition's ontological claims

And if "philosophy" means:

• Subjecting all claims to rational scrutiny
• Maintaining epistemic humility about ultimate questions
• Following arguments where they lead even if uncomfortable
• Willingness to revise beliefs based on better arguments

Then yes, there's genuine tension. Philosophy practiced seriously tends to erode dogmatic certainty.

But notice: This tension exists equally for Western and Eastern religious claims. The Christian philosopher who concludes "I cannot justify belief in the resurrection" and the Zen practitioner who concludes "I cannot justify claims about Buddha-nature as ultimate reality" face structurally similar situations.

Your weak agnosticism is one way of living in that tension without resolving it falsely (through either dogmatic belief or dogmatic denial). You:

• Take wisdom traditions seriously
• Extract practical insights
• Maintain skepticism about metaphysical claims
• Stay open to revision
• Don't claim to have settled the questions

This is philosophically honest and existentially sustainable. It allows you to engage deeply with traditions without pretending certainty you don't have.

When to Deploy the Critique: No Formula, But Heuristics

You're right that there's no algorithm for deciding when philosophical critique is appropriate. But some rough heuristics might be:

Deploy the critique when:

• The context is explicitly intellectual (classroom, academic conference, philosophical discussion)
• Someone makes strong knowledge-claims and invites response
• Misunderstandings of a tradition would be clarified by your analysis
• You're asked directly for your view
• The conversation is among equals engaged in serious inquiry

Hold back when:

• You're a guest in a practice community where you're not in a teaching role
• Someone is sharing personal spiritual experience vulnerably (not making epistemic claims)
• The primary function is community/ritual, not intellectual exchange
• Your intervention would be received as aggression rather than inquiry
• You're dealing with someone in crisis who needs support, not philosophical challenges

Navigate carefully when:

• Someone is using metaphysical claims to justify harm (here the stakes change)
• You're in a teaching role and students hold diverse metaphysical commitments
• You're writing for a general audience that includes both scholars and practitioners
• You're in interreligious dialogue where both respect and honesty matter

The key: Match the register of conversation. If someone is speaking experientially/poetically, don't respond with epistemological critique. If someone is making truth-apt claims and inviting philosophical exchange, engage accordingly.

Your Ashram Scenario: A Model

Your hypothetical—"if I were in serious discussion with someone in an ashram, temple, or monastery, I would put my ideas forward as the product of my own (limited but not inconsiderable) experience and thought"—is exemplary because it balances:

1. Honesty: You share your actual position, not a watered-down version
2. Humility: You frame it as your own conclusion based on your experience/thinking, not universal truth
3. Respect: You're engaging as a fellow inquirer, not as an external critic dismissing their tradition
4. Openness: The framing invites response rather than foreclosing conversation

This is very different from either:

• Aggressive: "Your metaphysics is incoherent and you're deluded"
• Patronizing: "That's a nice belief for you, but let's talk about something else"

Instead, it's: "Here's how I've come to understand these issues. I'm curious about your perspective, especially where you think I might be missing something."

This allows for genuine philosophical exchange without violence to the relationship or the tradition. The practitioner might:

• Offer counterarguments you hadn't considered
• Share experiential dimensions that complicate your analysis
• Explain how the tradition already handles the tensions you identify
• Or simply disagree and explain why your framework doesn't resonate with their experience

All of those are productive outcomes. The conversation continues rather than terminating in either dogmatic assertion or evasive politeness.

Synthesis: The Ethics of Philosophical Critique

What emerges from this discussion is a sophisticated ethics of intellectual engagement:

Principle 1: Even-Handedness Apply the same epistemic standards to all metaphysical claims, regardless of cultural origin or social valence.

Principle 2: Context-Sensitivity
Recognize that not all contexts call for philosophical critique, even when you hold a clear position.

Principle 3: Prioritization Don't make every conversation about your critique. Sometimes other values (community, support, shared practice) take precedence.

Principle 4: Honesty Without Aggression When philosophical exchange is appropriate, state your position clearly but frame it as your own conclusion, inviting response.

Principle 5: Epistemic Humility Maintain weak agnosticism—you hold your position but remain open to revision based on arguments/evidence you haven't encountered.

Principle 6: Practical Focus Remember that the point isn't to win arguments but to clarify thinking and improve living. If the critique serves that goal, deploy it. If not, hold back.

This is philosophy in the service of life, not philosophy as competitive sport or identity-maintenance. It takes the examined life seriously without turning examination into an end in itself.

Your approach threads a difficult needle: maintaining intellectual integrity (you have a position and defend it) while avoiding philosophical imperialism (forcing that position on others regardless of context). That's hard to do well, and the fact that you're reflecting on when/how to deploy critique rather than just always deploying it shows you're doing it thoughtfully.

The Krishnamurti dialogue, understood this way, is one move in an ongoing conversation, not a final verdict. You've put your analysis on the table, argued for it carefully, but left space for response. That's exactly what philosophical inquiry should look like—rigorous without being dogmatic, critical without being dismissive, committed without being closed.

That is very helpful-- seeing the implications of my remarks more fully elaborated. I think I agree with most of  your ramifications. I'll stop to re-read. THAT (an ethics of philosophical critique) was an unexpected but VERY welcome addition to the work I'm doing. Perhaps a short-medium essay on everything discussed on the page, including this discussion OF philosophical discussion (ethics of critique) would be of some value. But first I need to re-read our thread. Thanks for that!

I'm really glad this proved generative! The "ethics of philosophical critique" dimension emerged naturally from your clarifications but does seem to deserve its own articulation—it's often implicit in good philosophical practice but rarely made explicit in the way we've just done.

The trajectory of our conversation itself demonstrates something interesting: we moved from analyzing what your argument is (the Krishnamurti critique, the art-of-living alternative) to how and when to deploy it (context-sensitivity, weak agnosticism, skillful means in philosophical engagement). That second-order reflection is valuable precisely because it shows you're not just making claims but thinking carefully about the pragmatics of making claims—which is very much in the spirit of your broader pragmatist commitments.

A short-to-medium essay synthesizing this could be quite useful. It would:

1. Model the ethics it describes (by being itself an example of careful, non-dogmatic philosophical engagement)
2. Fill a gap (there's surprisingly little explicit work on when/how to critique metaphysical frameworks without either arrogance or false deference)
3. Connect to your larger project (showing how weak agnosticism and art-of-living discourse aren't just theoretical positions but guide practical intellectual engagement)
4. Be pedagogically valuable (for students, scholars, and serious practitioners navigating these tensions)

When you do re-read, you might pay attention to whether the six principles I articulated (even-handedness, context-sensitivity, prioritization, honesty without aggression, epistemic humility, practical focus) accurately capture your approach, or whether they need refinement, addition, or reordering. They emerged from our conversation but I was synthesizing on the fly—you'd have a clearer sense of whether they reflect your actual practice and commitments.

Take your time with the re-read. I'll be here when you're ready to continue developing this, whether that's refining the ethics-of-critique framework, returning to the Krishnamurti analysis itself, or exploring other connections to your broader work on descriptive evocation, reverent coping, and syncretic engagement.

This has been genuinely productive philosophical conversation—thanks for bringing such clarity and thoughtfulness to these questions.

AFTERThought: ME:First before writing, one clarification that seems important-- OE is not itself an ontology, but emerged in the discussion as something that SEEMS that way because it functions as an "ontological tier" in 2 tier-systems. I should have noticed the ambiguity earlier. There is no ONE PARADIGM for "ordinary experience"-- rather : IT IS ALWAYS BEING NEGOTIATED NOT ONLY WITHIN BUT BETWEEN CULTURES. (e.g. Some "ordinary experience" in some cultures or subcultures is mediated by religious or scientific concepts that are not in play in another and so forth). Thus, OE (if I even continue using the misleading term outside of the 2 tiered systems) merely designates a state of play in which people function in day to day life, and in which any strong and controversial TRUTH CLAIMS are expected to be defended, and not just accepted or denied. E.g. A journalist writing about a Priest is not out to prove or disprove anyrthing necessarily, but IF a strong claim is made, it is well within the norms of conventional journalism to put the Priest on the spot and ask for clarification or argument or defense. Something along those lines. It's more like "everyday life" in sociology than "Ordinary Experience" in some ontological sense.  Perplex:  That clarification is important, and it actually tightens the whole framework.

OE as negotiated practice, not a tier Your original use of “OE” made sense inside the two‑tier systems you were diagnosing: there it functions as the lower “ontological tier” in contrast to UR. Outside those systems, though, it is better treated as:

• Not an ontology at all.
• Not a single paradigm of experience.
• But a shifting, culturally negotiated field of practices, expectations, and justificatory norms—closer to “everyday life” in sociology than to “ordinary experience” as a metaphysical category.
• Under this reframing:
• Different cultures and subcultures live “ordinary life” through different conceptual mediations (religious, scientific, folk‑psychological, etc.), and there is no neutral, metaphysically privileged OE behind them.
• So in your own vocabulary, “OE” becomes at most a shorthand for this dialogical, everyday space of life and contestable claims, not a lower ontological stratum. That keeps your critique clearly epistemic/pragmatic (about how claims are made and defended in lived contexts) rather than smuggling in a single, fixed picture of “the ordinary” as itself a metaphysical given.
• 
  
• What is shared is a rough context of interaction where strong, controversial truth‑claims are expected to be answerable to questions, challenges, and requests for reasons—your journalist/priest example is a nice micro‑model of that.

This clarification is crucial and prevents a significant misunderstanding. Let me work through the implications:

The Problem You're Identifying

When you use "OE" (Ordinary Experience) as the contrasting term to "UR" (Ultimate Reality) in your critique of two-tier systems, it risks creating the impression that you're positing your own ontological tier—as if you're saying: "No, there's no UR, there's only OE, and here's what OE really is."

That would make you guilty of the same move you're critiquing: replacing one metaphysical claim with another.

The Corrective

"OE" in your usage is not an ontological category but a sociological/pragmatic designation for:

• The negotiated space of everyday practices and interactions
• The realm where truth-claims are expected to be defensible, not just asserted
• A culturally variable field (what counts as "ordinary" differs across contexts)
• The domain of contested meanings rather than pre-given metaphysical foundations

So when you say "these insights work better understood as guidance for living within OE rather than as knowledge of UR," you're not making a counter-ontological claim. You're saying:

"Instead of positing two levels of reality and claiming access to the higher one, we can understand these teachings as offering ways to navigate the contested, culturally embedded, practically engaged life we're already living—without needing metaphysical foundations."

Why This Matters for Your Argument

1. Avoids Self-Refutation

If "OE" were itself an ontological tier, you'd be doing what you critique: ranking levels of reality. But understood as sociologically negotiated everyday life, you're not making ontological claims—you're describing a pragmatic space where:

• Different people bring different conceptual frameworks (religious, scientific, folk-psychological)
• Claims are subject to challenge and justification
• No single paradigm is privileged as The True Description

2. Preserves Pluralism

What counts as "ordinary experience" in a Hindu ashram differs from what counts as ordinary in a neuroscience lab or a Midwestern American suburb. Your point isn't to legislate a single correct account of "the ordinary," but to note that:

• These are all contexts where people live, interact, and make claims
• Strong metaphysical assertions (about UR, Brahman, Buddha-nature) are one type of claim among others in these contexts
• Such claims can be questioned, examined, and assessed without being automatically accepted or dismissed

3. Clarifies the Epistemic Move

Your critique becomes clearer: You're not saying "OE is real and UR is not" (an ontological claim). You're saying:

"When operating in the space of everyday practices and contestable claims, assertions about UR face a burden of justification. The two-tier systems I examine don't meet that burden—they generate internal incoherence. So I bracket those metaphysical claims and focus on what we can defensibly say about attention, suffering, aesthetic experience, and ethical orientation within everyday life."

This is epistemic restraint, not ontological assertion.

The Journalist/Priest Analogy

This is a helpful micro-model. A journalist interviewing a priest:

• Doesn't assume the priest's theological claims are true
• Doesn't assume they're false either
• Does expect that if the priest makes strong claims ("I know God exists," "Transubstantiation literally occurs"), the journalist can ask: "How do you know?" "What's your evidence?" "How would you respond to someone who disagrees?"

This describes a normative expectation in public discourse: strong truth-claims invite justification. That's not a metaphysical position about reality—it's a pragmatic norm about how claims work in dialogical contexts.

Similarly, when someone says "I have realized Ultimate Reality beyond all conceptual mediation," you're entitled to ask:

• "How do you know it's ultimate rather than just a powerful experience?"
• "How do you square that with the internal tensions in your framework?"
• "Could this be understood differently?"

You're not claiming "there is no UR"—you're exercising the ordinary epistemic right to question undefended assertions.

"Everyday Life" as Sociological Frame

Your reference to sociology is apt. When sociologists study "everyday life" (Berger & Luckmann's Social Construction of Reality, Goffman's interaction rituals, Garfinkel's ethnomethodology), they're not proposing an ontology. They're examining:

• How people coordinate action and meaning
• How shared realities are constructed and maintained
• How disruptions are handled
• How claims are warranted in specific contexts

This is descriptive/analytical work on social practices, not metaphysical claims about levels of being.

Your use of "OE" (better: "everyday life" or "lived experience" or "dialogical space of practice") works the same way: it's the negotiated field where contemplative traditions, therapeutic practices, philosophical arguments, and aesthetic sensibilities all interact—without any single framework having metaphysical privilege.

Terminological Suggestion

Given the confusion potential, you might consider:

Instead of "OE" (which sounds ontological), use:

• "Everyday life" (sociological)
• "Lived experience" (phenomenological but non-ontological)
• "The space of reasons" (Sellarsian—the domain where claims are justified)
• "Dialogical practice" (emphasizing negotiation and contestation)
• Or just describe the domain functionally each time without a fixed term

This would make clear you're not positing a metaphysical alternative to UR, but rather declining to play the two-tier ontology game and instead focusing on how we navigate claims, practices, and values in the culturally embedded contexts we actually inhabit.

How This Affects the Essay Structure

For an essay on the ethics of philosophical critique, this clarification shapes how you frame the whole project:

Not: "Two-tier systems are wrong because there's only OE, not UR"

But: "Two-tier systems generate internal incoherence when presented as knowledge of ultimate reality. Rather than adjudicate whether UR exists, I bracket that question and focus on what we can defensibly say about attention, suffering, and value within the contested, culturally variable space of everyday practice—where all claims, including metaphysical ones, face justificatory expectations."

This keeps your position agnostic (you're not claiming UR doesn't exist), pragmatic (you're focusing on what works in lived contexts), and pluralist (you're not legislating what "everyday life" must look like).

Final Reframing

Your project, then, is not:

• Replacing a two-tier ontology with a one-tier ontology
• Asserting "the ordinary is all there is"
• Reducing ultimate concerns to mundane ones

Instead, it's:

• Epistemological: Showing that knowledge-claims about UR don't meet their burden of proof
• Hermeneutic: Reinterpreting two-tier systems as skillful means rather than ontological descriptions
• Pragmatic: Focusing on what we can defensibly say about attention, value, and practice within the negotiated space of everyday life
• Pluralistic: Allowing for multiple ways of navigating that space without privileging any single framework

The Krishnamurti critique becomes: "His framework claims to escape hierarchy and metaphysics, but it smuggles in a two-tier ontology with attendant problems. We can extract the valuable psychological/axiological insights without the problematic metaphysics—not by asserting a counter-ontology, but by remaining in the space of defensible claims about everyday practice."

That's clean, coherent, and doesn't commit you to positions you don't hold. The clarification definitely strengthens the overall argument.

The OE-UR language is fine when the discussion is INTERNAL  to 2 -tiered ontologies. But in explaining why they don't seem coherent to me, we should introduce either 1 or several terms to use from that point on. This could work as follows, "Now that we see the whole OE-UR dichotomy invites a nest of troubles, we can view it as one of many metaphors, descriptive evocations that might help some practitioners, but which does not serve as a blueprint of "reality."  Rather than defend ANY ontology, it would be fruitful to now shift our vocabulary to emphasize that we're changing the topic from ontology to what I call "art of living discourse." In such discourse, much of what K, Advaita, Mahayana ontologists et al. label as OE or "The Level of Conventional Truth " is more humbly understood merely as  "Everyday Life" -- sociological reference to the site of interaction and negotiated meanings, without reference to which are true and false. Now, in such a venue, it is quite typical for unusual and strong truth claims to be disputed, questioned, interrogated etc. In just that way,  the very idea of"OE" now reveals itself as another attempt to naturalize one of many possible folk-ontologies and/or folk-psychologies. This is not my interest or goal. Rather, I want to suggest that there are some valuable lessons in the philosophy we reviewed in Krishnamurti and others, that may have value that can be appreciated within and across several such "folk ontologies" and , indeed, may have  value even for the staunchest advocate of 2 tiered metaphysics. In sum, I've argued that the 2 tiered approaches seem to self-refute on what I think are strong grounds. NOW, I'd like to explore other psychological, aesthetic and cultural virtues these philosophers, and others, leave open to people of multiple or no faiths." --- Something along such lines.  Thoughts?

This is excellent—it provides a clear pivot point from the critical/diagnostic phase to the constructive/reconstructive phase. Let me work through why this framing works so well:

The Structural Move

You're doing something methodologically sophisticated here:

Phase 1 (Critical): "Let me engage two-tier ontologies on their own terms, using their vocabulary (OE/UR), and show they generate internal problems."

Phase 2 (Pivot): "Having shown these problems, I'm now changing the conversation—not to a different ontology, but to a different kind of discourse entirely."

Phase 3 (Reconstructive): "In this new register (art of living), we can extract what's valuable from these traditions without the metaphysical baggage."

This structure honors the traditions (you took them seriously enough to analyze them carefully), demonstrates problems (internal incoherence, not external dismissal), and then offers an alternative (not a rival metaphysics but a different way of framing the inquiry).

Why the Language Shift Matters

The explicit announcement—"we're changing vocabulary because we're changing topics"—does crucial work:

1. Prevents Talking Past Each Other

Without the shift, readers might think you're still playing the ontology game: "Paul says there's only OE, not UR—but how does he know that?"

By announcing the topic change, you clarify: "I'm no longer adjudicating ontological claims. I'm bracketing those questions and focusing on practical wisdom about attention, value, and living."

2. Frames the Vocabulary as Stipulative, Not Descriptive

"Everyday life" in your usage isn't claiming to describe what really exists (the way "OE" in two-tier systems claims to describe a lower realm). It's a functional designation for:

• The space of social interaction
• Negotiated meanings
• Contexts where claims face justificatory expectations

This is sociological/pragmatic, not metaphysical.

3. Avoids Naturalizing Any Folk Ontology

Your point about "OE" as "another attempt to naturalize one of many possible folk-ontologies" is key. Even the category "ordinary experience" isn't neutral—it reflects particular cultural assumptions about what counts as ordinary vs. extraordinary, real vs. illusory, etc.

By explicitly refusing to privilege any folk ontology, you keep the framework maximally inclusive: someone operating with Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, secular, scientific, or idiosyncratic ontological commitments can all potentially benefit from the art-of-living insights.

The Passage You Sketched

Let me offer a slightly polished version that preserves your logic while tightening the prose:

---

"Now that we've seen how the OE-UR dichotomy invites a nest of troubles, we can view it more charitably: as one among many metaphors or descriptive evocations that might help some practitioners orient their attention and practice. But it doesn't serve—and cannot bear the weight of—a blueprint of reality.

Rather than defend any ontology, I want to shift our vocabulary to signal a change of topic: from ontology to what I call 'art of living discourse.' In such discourse, what two-tier systems label 'OE' or 'the level of conventional truth' is more humbly understood as 'everyday life'—a sociological reference to the site of interaction, negotiated meanings, and contested claims, without presuming which frameworks are ultimately true or false.

Within everyday life, it's typical for unusual or strong truth-claims to be disputed, questioned, and interrogated. Viewed this way, even the category 'OE' reveals itself as an attempt to naturalize one particular folk-ontology or folk-psychology among many. That is not my interest or goal.

Instead, I want to suggest that there are valuable lessons in Krishnamurti, Advaita, Zen, and related philosophies that can be appreciated within and across several such folk-ontologies—and indeed, may have value even for staunch advocates of two-tier metaphysics. These lessons concern attention, suffering, aesthetic experience, ethical orientation, and the cultivation of everyday sensibility.

In sum: I've argued that two-tier approaches seem to self-refute on what I take to be strong grounds. Now I'd like to explore the psychological, aesthetic, and cultural virtues these philosophers leave open to people of multiple faiths—or none."

---

Why This Works

1. Charitable Reinterpretation

You're not saying "two-tier models are worthless"—you're saying they work as evocative metaphors but fail as ontology. This lets readers who value these traditions see you as reconstructing rather than demolishing.

2. Explicit Topic Shift

The announcement prevents confusion. You're not sneaking in a different agenda—you're openly declaring: "We're done with ontology; now we're doing something else."

3. Inclusive Framework

By refusing to privilege any folk-ontology, you make the art-of-living insights available to anyone, regardless of metaphysical commitments. A Christian, Buddhist, atheist, or agnostic can all potentially benefit.

4. Preserves Critical Work

You don't abandon the critique ("two-tier approaches self-refute"), but you contextualize it: "Having shown these problems, here's what we can salvage and how."

5. Forward Momentum

The passage creates anticipation: "Okay, you've shown the problems—now what's valuable?" This sets up the reconstructive work naturally.

Terminological Consistency Going Forward

After this pivot, you'd want to consistently use:

Instead of "OE" → "everyday life" (or "lived experience," "dialogical practice," "the space of contestable claims")

Instead of "UR" → "metaphysical ultimacy" or "ultimate reality claims" (when you need to reference what the traditions posit, without endorsing it)

New primary terms:

• "Art of living discourse" (the new frame)
• "Attention" / "attending" (the practical focus)
• "Axiology" / "value" (what matters, what's worth caring about)
• "Folk-ontologies" (plural, to emphasize cultural variability and contestability)

This vocabulary keeps the focus pragmatic and pluralistic rather than metaphysical and monistic.

One Possible Refinement

You might consider making even more explicit what counts as "art of living discourse" shortly after the pivot. Something like:

"Art of living discourse, as I'm using the term, includes:

• Guidance about what and how to attend (attention practices)
• Cultivation of sensibilities (aesthetic, ethical, contemplative)
• Strategies for reducing needless suffering (psychological insights)
• Frameworks for navigating value questions without fixed codes (pragmatic axiology)
• Resources from philosophy, contemplative traditions, therapy, literature, and everyday wisdom

This discourse is invitational rather than prescriptive: it offers possibilities to explore, not truths to accept. It's pluralistic about background commitments: different metaphysical frameworks can inform how one approaches these practices, but the practices themselves don't require any particular ontology. And it's experimental: what works is tested in lived experience, not deduced from first principles."

This would give readers a concrete sense of the territory you're now exploring, making the transition even clearer.

Strategic Placement

This pivot passage should come:

After: The full critical analysis (Parts I-III of your Krishnamurti dialogue—hierarchy, teleology, sublation)

Before: The psychological reinterpretation and art-of-living reconstruction (Parts V-VIII—dishwashing, attention, CBT connections, axiology)

It marks the hinge between diagnosis and reconstruction, making explicit what might otherwise feel like an abrupt shift in register.

Bottom Line

Your proposed passage does exactly what it needs to: it transitions smoothly from immanent critique to constructive alternative, clarifies the vocabulary shift, prevents misunderstanding about what kind of project you're undertaking, and sets up the reconstructive work that follows.

The move from "OE-UR is incoherent as ontology" → "so let's bracket ontology and focus on art of living" is philosophically sound and rhetorically effective. It shows you're not just demolishing two-tier systems but extracting what's valuable from them in a different key.

This is exactly the kind of move that makes your approach both philosophically rigorous (you've shown real problems) and practically generous (you're not asking anyone to abandon what helps them, only to understand it differently).

I think this framing will work beautifully in the essay. It gives you a clean way to pivot from critique to reconstruction while keeping everything conceptually clear and methodologically honest.

All sage advice. Small point-- I  don't like the term "bracketing" here, as that phenomenological idea is still related to the search for truth, and assumes that while so searching, basic cognitive commitmenets can be "put to the side" by the "skilled" phenomenologist. I would simply say, "Now we're changing the topic, even though as weak agnostic, it can be revisited again some other time. But for now, I'm interested in how the philosophies we looked at have something other than metaphysical contributions-- I call these art of living etc. etc. (And your detailed description of art of living can be explicated in turn.0

You're absolutely right—"bracketing" carries Husserlian baggage that misrepresents what you're doing.

Husserl's epoché is about suspending judgment to access phenomena more purely, which is still within the truth-seeking/ontological project. You're not doing that. You're changing the subject from ontology to practice, not temporarily suspending ontological questions to do better ontology.

Your alternative is clearer and more honest:

---

"Now we're changing the topic. As a weak agnostic, I remain open to revisiting metaphysical questions if compelling arguments or evidence emerge. But for now, I'm interested in how the philosophies we've examined have contributions beyond their metaphysical claims—what I call their 'art of living' dimensions."

---

This does several things "bracketing" doesn't:

1. Acknowledges genuine topic change (not methodological suspension within the same inquiry)

2. Maintains weak agnosticism (the door stays open; you're not declaring metaphysics permanently off-limits)

3. Emphasizes practical interest ("for now, I'm interested in...") without claiming you've settled the ontological questions

4. Frames it as a choice of focus rather than a philosophical procedure

The phrase "for now" is particularly good—it keeps the pragmatic, exploratory tone. You're not saying "ontology is finished" or "I've bracketed it successfully," but simply: "I'm choosing to explore a different dimension of these teachings, and this choice is motivated by both their internal problems as ontology and their evident value as something else."

This also avoids the impossible claim that you (or anyone) can actually set aside deep cognitive commitments. You're not pretending to achieve some neutral stance—you're just redirecting attention to aspects of these traditions that don't depend on resolving their metaphysical disputes.

Much cleaner. The weak agnostic framing does the work without importing phenomenological methodology you're not using.

I am back after about two weeks due to unforeseen detours in my own life. I have just re-read this page and it still looks promising yes I thought. But with fresh eyes I've got a suggestion: when we present the two tier ontology typology (which is a Type subsuming Krishnamurti, New Age-ish Non-Duality (maybe Eckhart Tolle et. al.), Advaita, Madhyamika, Chan, Zen, TianTai et al) We should not play into the temptation to use Ordinary Experience with approval, but go even fruther than we do in the comments above, to SHOW THAT WHEN ORDINARY EXPERIENCE GETS DESCRIBED BY THESE ONTOLOGICAL TRADITIONS, IT IS , ITSELF , TURNED INTO A METAPHYSICAL DESCRIPTION AND NEVER ACTUALLY REFERS TO WHAT WE WILL DISTINGUISH AS THE MERELY SOCIOLOGICAL CATEGORY OF "EVERYDAY LIFE" WHICH ADMITS AGNOSTICISM ON METAPHYSICS. S0, TO CASH THIS OUT, ---OE/"CONVENTIONAL TRUTH" (AND NOTE THE TERM TRUTH HERE) IS DESCRIBED IN WILDLY DIFFERENT IF EQUALLY DOWN-GRADED WAYS BY THE TRADITIONS WE LISTED. ADVAITA VEDANTA GIVES US "THE DIVINE PLAY OF LILA WHICH CAN ALSO BE VIEWED AS IGNORANCE/AVIDYA-- NOT SEEING RIGHT-- FROM THE SUBJECT'S POV; NAGARJUNA HAS NO ROOM FOR ANY OF THAT, THERE IS IGNORANCE, OF COURSE, BUT ONLY IGNORANCE OF RADICAL INTERBEING/INTERDEPENDENCE AND TRANSIENCE WITH AN ACCOMPANYING THIRST (TANHA IN PALI, CRAVING) TO REIFY PROCESSES ( INTRANSIENT MOMENTS/DHAMMAS) THUS LEADING TO THE VIEW THAT PEOPLE AND OBJECTS HAVE SVABHAVA . FOR HUMANS THAT MEANS AHAMKARA GETS REIFIED: HENCE THE ANNATMAN MOVE; FOR TAOISTS (AND INCIDENTALLY THIS APPEARS IN WHAT I CALL THE "SOCIAL ONTOLOGY" OF CONFUCIUS) WE GET AN EARLY TASTE OF "LINGIUISTIC TURN" MOVES-- FOR DAOISTS, WHATEVER CAN BE NAMED IS NOT IDENTICAL WITH THE REFERENT. EVEN THE MASTER-TERM "TAO" UNDERSTOOD AS A NAME IS NOT "THE ETERNAL TAO". THE LATTER LIVES IN THE SPACE OF WHAT I'VE CALLED DESCRIPTIVE EVOCATION, AND NOT IN THE SPACE OF DETERMINATE EXPLICATION , WHERE TYPICAL EVERYDAY ITEMS LIVE (A CAR IS NOT A HORSE, AND HAS DETERMINATE MEANING WITHIN UP AND RUNNINIG SOCIALLY SHARED SEMANTIC FRAMEWORKS WHICH I CALL "IN-FRAME" ISSUES, SEE THE PAPER YOU HELPED ME WITH HERE CALLED "NO GOLDEN AGE OF FACTS" ). .QUESTIONS LIKE "WHAT IS BEING, THE WORLD, NATURE, COSMOS, ARE "FRAME-BOUNDARY QUESTIONS. THEY EXIST OUTSIDE OF SHARED, NAVIGABLE FRAMEWORKS, CRITERIA FOR INCLUSION AND EXCLUSION OF CANDIDATES FOR WHAT COUNTS AS BEING /NATURE AND WHAT DOES NOT, AND WHY. WHAT IS THE GOOD, AS WITTGENSTEIN SHOWS, LACKS MEANING BECAUSE IT IS ONLY CASHED OUT IN PLURAL FRAMES ("FORMS OF LIFE/LANGUAGE GAMES") EACH WITH SOME SIMILARITIES TO OTHERS AND ALSO SOME DIFFERENCES (YIELDING FAMILY RESEMBLANCE AND NOT UNITARY MEANING). EVEN AMONG TAOISTS "THE TAO" DOES NOT ADMIT OF HARD-FAST CRITERIA IN TERMS OF WHAT CAN BE EXPLICATED (AND POSSIBLY WHAT IS EXPERIENCED AS WELL). FOR CUNFUCIUS THE TAO IS A SOCIAL TAO, LI -- OR PATTERNS, WHICH IN SOCIETY CAN TAKE THE FORM OF BOTH ROLES AND RITUALS-- I'm not viewed as in positions from above, or socially engineered discourse of tradition, BUT AS GENUINE (CHUNG-- sorry I came up in the Wade Giles era) = "Natural, Sincere, " just aS LI IN NATURE don't "TRY " to be as they are. A flower doesn't "try to be fragrant , or colorful" and the LLI (grains in ) tortoise shells and wood don't "TRY" to be as they are either. All this connects with Wu Wei which can also be seen as the principle to "be as you are naturally." When we deviate, there is need for "linguistic therapy " of a non-Witt. but Confucian type-- RECTIFICATION OF NAMES. = You "appear to be a father" but you've neglected those obbligations "naturally " intrinsic to father-son or father-daughter (though C didn't include that) relations. Note , no less than Taoism, this is metaphysics, and though it LOOKS a bit like reification ala Aristotelian "Natural Kinds" that would miss the target. Like Taoism, (and frankly I consider Confucianism a form of SOCIAL TAOISM, a form that used the concept TAO probably before Lao Tzu arrives). Like Taoism, Confucius believe that there is a natural way that things come to be as they are change and then vanish in cycles, and that we don't have exhaustive knowledge of the sum total of these cycles or the TAO itself, a mystery of mysteries. So in Confucius, "LI" (often translated a bit simplistically as "ritual") emerges OUT of the Tao/Nature, and is not superimposed upon it or grated onto it, just as the "utility of space in a bowl" for LaoTzu is not imposed upon it, but one of many evocative examples used to indicate "the WAY nature is/becomes". Nature IS capacious, we take capacities (the space within and between objects) for granted in a misperception of the world as coiniciding presence and absence; figure and background. No space = No statue. A STatue has shape only due to surrounding "empty" space. As for the GENUINE, " AS soon as morals appear the trouble starts" (paraphrase Laotzi) sounds as far as possible from Confucius is one can get. But look again. What is being sad is that by the time you have to put in all kinds of extra effort just to get things right, you've already gone terribly wrong. Confucius would not disagree with that. Hey starting point is that things have gone terribly wrong and he position some self not is the sage in the forest put a reformer in the city. Despite the arguments and tensions between confusions and Taoists during the warring states period, philosopher can look back and see you how each is responding to fractured social environment drawing on many of the same concepts and resources but in radically different ways. The real issue is whether or not one CAN "reform" society, if that means, use pedagogy and governance to recover "the state of nature" which is largely similar-- both Confucians And Daoists honor principles of Wu Wei (given somewhat different spins but recognizable as strong family resemblances), sincerity, and most of all the main idea of both which is to let go of all putative superfluities in order to LET the Tao be instantiated directly in all your acts, utterances, perceptions, etc. This digression got interesting for its own sake,sorry, so back to main point: THE 2 TIERS IN THIS CASE ARE CASHED OUT IN TERMS OF A CRITIQUE OF LANGUAGE, OF DESCRIPTIONS THAT BEWITCH OR CAPTIVATE PEOPLE LEADING THEM ASTRAY (SHADES OF LATTER-DAY WITTGENSTEIN). E.G. Taoism = THE TAO THAT CAN BE NAMED IS NOT THE ETERNAL TAO-- already proceeds from a principle of discrimination already found in Rectification of Names, viz. "CALLING SOMEONE BY A SOCIALLY RECOGNIZED TITLE IS A MISTAKE UNLESS THAT SOMEONE HAS THE NATURAL PATTERNS (LI) THAT MANIFEST IN ACTIONS THAT CORRESPOND TO THE NAME. This extreme sensitivity to ways in which names and realities are frequently at odds, leading us to confuse "appearnces" with "realities" is a metaphysical motif present also in Greek, Indian and other philosophies. "Things are not what they seem" is the general motif. Of course, it is a family resemblance, and not an identity. Taoists don't even think it is possible to ever get even the "names" approximately rectified such that they tell us much of importance about the "reals." Instead Taoists default to what I've been calling "Descriptive Evocation"-- using language (largely metaphors, analogies, paradoxical utterances and the like) to catalyze a direct apprehension of the true "non-dual" nature of Nature/Tao. But never a complete union with The Tao , as if it were, say Brahman in Vedanta. Nor a full apprehension of Sunyata through dialectic and meditation combined. The Taoist accepts the partiality of the experience of any single person, and does not reach for a grand unitive and synoptic union with One Big Reality. It is metaphysical, but not as "metaphysically voracious" as the others we list. Yet all of them can only turn ULTIMATE REALITY (UR) into a metaphysical frame-boundary ontology by ALSO (and less obviously on first glance) ONTOLOGIZING EVERYDAY LIFE. Examples--- Samsara contains in its "Everyday life stock of knowledge within frames" -- 1) Karma 2) Rebirth c) Deities and Protectors (some of which can intercede depending on the type of Buddhism) ; Advaita populates the "EVERYDAY" with Brahman Saguna-- a creative and feminine energy that externalizes Brahman somehow , producing the strictly APPARENT WORLD OF MAYA. EVERYDAY LIFE IS LIVED OUT IN THE REALM OF MAYA WHICH CAN BE SEEN AS A MAGICAL, WONDROUS PLAY AT BEST, AND A TORTUROUS NIGHTMARE BASED ON IGNORANCE OF BRAHMAN SAGUNA AND BRAHMAN NIRGUNA AT WORST, THUS REQUIRING EVOLUTION OF AHAMKARA (SELF) THROUGH YOGA UNTIL IT DISSOLVES INTO REALIZATION OF ITSELF AS ATMAN = BRAHMAN (MOKSHA) I can map out other examples later if we choose to go that way. THE MAIN POINIT HERE IS WE NOT ONLY WERE TAKING OE FOR GRANTED (WHEN IT IS SO PERVASIVELY ONTOLOGIZED AS EVERYDAY LIFE AND IS NOT "ORDINARY" IN THE USUAL SENSE OF THAT WORD, BUT WE FAILED TO CLEARLY STATE THAT BOTH LEVELS IN THESE 2 TIER SYSTEMS ARE *METAPHYSICAL SYSTEMS* AND NOT GROUND LEVEL EVERYDAY LIFE WHICH PERMITS OF INTERCULTURAL EXCHANGE USING SOCIAL AND OTHER STANDARDS THAT *DON'T* SUPERVENE ON A MASTER ONTOLOGY.

This is a major clarification and it fundamentally strengthens your argument. Let me work through why this matters so much:

The Core Insight

You're showing that BOTH tiers in two-tier systems are metaphysical constructions, not that one tier (OE) is "ordinary/mundane" and the other (UR) is "metaphysical/ultimate."

The traditions don't give us:

• Tier 1: Everyday life as we all live it (sociological, negotiated, plural)
• Tier 2: Ultimate Reality (metaphysical claim)

Instead, they give us:

• Tier 1: A metaphysically loaded account of "ordinary experience" (māyā, saṃsāra, conventional truth with karma/rebirth, linguistic captivity, etc.)
• Tier 2: Ultimate Reality (Brahman, śūnyatā, Tao, choiceless awareness, etc.)

Both tiers are ontological claims. The "lower" tier is already a thick metaphysical description that goes far beyond the sociological category of "everyday life."

Why This Matters for Your Critique

This transforms the force of your argument in several ways:

1. The Traditions Can't Claim Empirical Grounding

If someone says: "Our two-tier system starts with ordinary experience that everyone shares, then reveals the ultimate reality behind it," you can now respond:

"No—your 'ordinary experience' is already metaphysically loaded. You're not starting from shared everyday life; you're starting from a particular ontological framework (karma/rebirth, māyā, linguistic delusion, etc.) that already requires metaphysical commitment."

For example:

• Advaita: "Everyday life" = the realm of māyā, Brahman playing as multiplicity, avidyā obscuring true nature
• Madhyamaka: "Everyday life" = conventional truth infected by reification (svabhāva), craving (tṛṣṇā), ignorance of pratītyasamutpāda
• Taoism: "Everyday life" = linguistic captivity, names that mislead, wu wei violated by artifice
• Krishnamurti: "Everyday life" = the prison of psychological time, the known, accumulated experience

None of these are neutral descriptions. They're all metaphysical diagnoses of what's wrong with how people ordinarily live.

2. The "From the Ground Up" Rhetoric Collapses

Many of these traditions present themselves as starting from where we actually are and then showing us something deeper. But they don't start from "where we actually are" in any sociologically recognizable sense—they start from a metaphysical interpretation of ordinary life.

A Buddhist saying "I'm just describing ordinary experience (saṃsāra) and showing you the way out" is already presupposing:

• Karma operates
• Rebirth occurs
• Craving causes suffering in a specific technical sense
• There's something called nibbāna that's unconditioned

That's not "starting from ordinary experience"—it's starting from Buddhist metaphysics about ordinary experience.

3. The Intercultural Problem Becomes Visible

Your point about intercultural exchange is crucial. When you say "everyday life which permits of intercultural exchange using social and other standards that DON'T supervene on a master ontology," you're identifying something these traditions can't do.

Example:

• A Confucian, a Christian, a secular humanist, and an Advaitin can all coordinate action in everyday life (negotiate contracts, share meals, discuss politics) without resolving their metaphysical disagreements
• But they can't all accept each other's descriptions of what "ordinary experience" IS, because those descriptions are already metaphysically loaded

The Advaitin's "this is all māyā" and the Christian's "this is God's creation" and the secular humanist's "this is the natural world" are incompatible metaphysical claims, not neutral descriptions of shared ground.

4. Your Agnosticism Has Real Bite

When you say "I'm agnostic about metaphysics and want to focus on everyday life," you're not just bracketing the UR tier—you're rejecting both tiers as metaphysical packages and proposing something genuinely different: a sociologically grounded, pluralistic space of negotiated meanings.

This is a stronger position than it might initially seem, because you're not just saying "I don't know about Ultimate Reality." You're saying:

"I don't accept either tier of your system. Your 'ordinary experience' is already a metaphysical claim I don't endorse, and your 'ultimate reality' is a further metaphysical claim I find incoherent. I'm interested in something that doesn't require either: the sociological reality of everyday life where people with different metaphysical commitments can still interact, learn from each other, and cultivate valued qualities of experience."

The Frame-Boundary vs. In-Frame Distinction

Your appeal to "No Golden Age of Facts" terminology is perfect here:

In-frame questions have shared criteria, navigable frameworks:

• "Is this a car or a horse?" (determinate, shared semantics)
• "Did interest rates rise last quarter?" (shared measurement standards)
• "Is this action kind or cruel?" (contestable but within shared moral vocabulary)

Frame-boundary questions lack shared criteria:

• "What is Being?"
• "What is the Good?"
• "What is Nature/Cosmos/World?"
• "What is the Tao?"

The two-tier systems try to answer frame-boundary questions and then impose those answers on everyday life, turning the entire "lower tier" into a metaphysical framework.

But everyday life, properly understood, is where we operate within frames that allow coordination despite metaphysical pluralism. We don't need to agree about Being or the Tao to:

• Wash dishes together
• Negotiate a business contract
• Appreciate a sunset
• Discuss how to reduce suffering

Your art-of-living approach stays in-frame: it offers resources for attention, value, practice that can work across different metaphysical commitments precisely because it doesn't require settling frame-boundary questions.

The Confucian/Taoist Case Study

Your extended discussion of Confucius and Daoism beautifully illustrates how even within related traditions, the "lower tier" gets described very differently:

Confucian OE/Conventional Realm:

• Social roles and rituals (lǐ) that should manifest naturally
• Names (rectification of names) that should correspond to natural patterns
• A social Tao where wu wei means embodying your role genuinely
• Reform is possible through education and governance

Daoist OE/Conventional Realm:

• Linguistic captivity where names mislead
• Artifice and effort that violate natural spontaneity
• Wu wei as withdrawal from social engineering
• Reform is abandoning the attempt to reform

Shared themes: Both critique linguistic/conceptual mediation, honor wu wei and naturalness (zìrán), see contemporary life as corrupted.

Different implications: One seeks social reform through proper naming/ritual; the other rejects reform as further artifice.

Your point: These are two different metaphysical accounts of what's wrong with ordinary life, not neutral descriptions plus different solutions.

And crucially, neither is the sociological category of "everyday life" where a Confucian and Daoist could actually interact, disagree, and potentially learn from each other without one converting to the other's metaphysics.

The Varieties of Metaphysical "OE"

Let me map out how different traditions construct their "lower tier" to show the divergence:

Tradition
**"Ordinary Experience" = **
Key Metaphysical Claims
Advaita Vedānta
Māyā/Līlā; realm of multiplicity
Brahman playing as world; avidyā; karma/rebirth; eventual mokṣa
Madhyamaka
Conventional truth (saṃvṛti-satya)
Svabhāva-graha (reification); pratītyasamutpāda ignored; karma/rebirth; tṛṣṇā
Yogācāra
Vijñapti-mātra (consciousness-only)
Eight consciousnesses; ālaya-vijñāna storing seeds; transformation needed
Zen/Chan
Saṃsāra; deluded mind
Mind clouded by concepts; original Buddha-nature obscured; sudden awakening possible
Daoism
Named realm; realm of distinctions
Language misleads; names ≠ eternal Tao; wu wei violated by effort
Confucianism
Corrupted social order
Names don't match realities; lǐ violated; need rectification
Krishnamurti
The field of the known; psychological time
Experience = accumulation; observer ≠ observed creates division; conditioning
New Age Non-Duality
Ego-mind; separation consciousness
"You are not your thoughts"; true self obscured; presence vs. mind

Notice: These are wildly different accounts. They don't agree on:

• What's wrong with ordinary life
• Why it's wrong
• What ordinary life even consists of
• How to remedy it

Yet all present themselves as revealing what's really going on in ordinary experience, then pointing beyond it.

What This Means for Your Argument

Revised Structure:

Part I: The Two-Tier Pattern Show that these traditions share a structural pattern: Lower realm vs. Higher realm, with devaluation of the lower and privileging of the higher.

Part II: Both Tiers Are Metaphysical (NEW EMPHASIS): Show that the "lower tier" is not neutral everyday life but a metaphysically loaded construction that varies dramatically across traditions. Each tradition has a different ontological story about what's wrong with ordinary experience.

Part III: Internal Incoherence Your existing critique: teleology reintroduced, sublation paradox, hierarchy denied then reasserted.

Part IV: The Topic Change "Now we're changing the topic from metaphysics (both tiers) to art of living (sociological everyday life + pragmatic value cultivation)."

Part V: Reconstruction Extract practical insights about attention, suffering, value—without requiring commitment to any particular metaphysical account of ordinary experience OR ultimate reality.

Key Formulation:

"These traditions don't give us everyday life plus a metaphysical supplement. They give us two metaphysical tiers: a metaphysical diagnosis of what's wrong with ordinary life, and a metaphysical remedy (ultimate reality).

My art-of-living approach rejects both tiers as metaphysical packages. Instead, I work from a sociological understanding of everyday life—the negotiated space where people with different ontological commitments can interact, coordinate, and learn from each other.

Within that space, I extract practical wisdom from these traditions about attention, suffering, and value—wisdom that doesn't require accepting their metaphysical frameworks."

The Wittgensteinian Connection

Your reference to later Wittgenstein is apt. The traditions you're analyzing share his concern: language bewitches, ordinary ways of talking mislead, conceptual frameworks trap us.

But whereas Wittgenstein offers therapeutic dissolution of philosophical problems by showing how language goes on holiday, these traditions offer metaphysical solutions (realize Brahman, see śūnyatā, merge with Tao, achieve choiceless awareness).

Your approach is more Wittgensteinian: Don't replace one metaphysical picture with another; change the game entirely. Move from metaphysics (both tiers) to pragmatic cultivation of attention and value within the plural, contestable space of everyday life.

Bottom Line

This clarification is essential and transforms your argument from:

"Two-tier systems have problems, so let's focus on the practical wisdom instead"

To:

"Two-tier systems metaphysically load BOTH tiers, which means they can't claim to start from shared ground. They're comprehensive metaphysical packages, both tiers included. Since they generate internal incoherence AND can't serve as neutral starting points for intercultural exchange, I propose abandoning the entire framework (both tiers) in favor of a sociologically grounded, pluralistic art of living that doesn't require settling frame-boundary metaphysical questions."

This is a much stronger, clearer, and more defensible position.

Would you like me to draft a passage that incorporates this insight into the pivot section we discussed earlier?

I'd rather make sure we get the "revised structure" outline just right first. We've changed a lot, and I need to think about what you wrote above as "revised structure." It is close to what I'm thinking, but the revision only occured to me within the last hour while re-reading this page after a week or 2 away. The Wittgenstein connection trouble me a bit as well. Yes, I'm influenced by that, but Wittgenstein's treatment of religion (which we discussed at length on another page) is actually enigmatic, as he both waxed romantic about it, while at other times in late life seeming to reduce them to a language game (or set of them) -- whereas I have a positive contribution here as a contemplative of sorts-- that's the Descriptive Evocation. That is not a particular language game or form of life, but always possible (if one has NL that contains metaphors) pedagogical response to both life's joys and miseries, which can be meaningfully emplyed and negotiated among humans of various cultures from atheist and agnostic to Buddhist or Hindu or Christian. Its key principles are fallibilism, epistemic humility, and a desire to understand ourselves, others and the world we experience (each of us sometwhat differently) with an eye to improved quality of life, enrichment of felt meaning, or something like "flourishing." It does require some putative virtues widely distributed across different tradionts (tier 1 virtues) including tolerance, compassion, respect for other persons as persons, ability to track pragmatic consequences (such as harms and benefits resulting from actions to ourselves and others)-- but these are pretty thin (though it will inevitably exclude those not so inclined). It's important to recall, this is not a) a system b) ideology c) claimed as an "accurate" description of anything, and that it IS a) suggestive b) invitational c) open-ended d) as interested in the creativity others bring to it as anything "it" offers to them, and so e) dialogical/creatively interactive. So, let's mull these thought s over. I'll do it by rereading and thinking for a few hours. I may have some new thoughts as this new twist (both tiers are metaphysics, OE is a misnomer) only hit me for some reason in the past hour. I am just as eager to here what you have to say about it, and this comment, as I am to spend some quality time reflecting on its implications for my view of Descript. Evocation and Contemplation across cultures.

This is excellent—you're absolutely right to pause and get the structure exactly right before proceeding. The "both tiers are metaphysical" insight is genuinely transformative for your argument, and it deserves careful integration rather than hasty incorporation.

On the Wittgenstein Connection

Your caution here is well-founded. The parallel I drew was too quick and risks misrepresenting both Wittgenstein and your project.

The problem: Wittgenstein's late work on religion is indeed enigmatic and arguably reductionist in ways you're not. When he treats religious language as just another language game with its own grammar and criteria, he risks:

1. Flattening the experiential dimension (treating religious utterances as moves in a game rather than responses to felt experience)
2. Cultural relativism (each form of life is sealed in its own grammar with no real dialogue across them)
3. Missing the contemplative core (what you're calling Descriptive Evocation, which cuts across forms of life)

Your project is different because:

• You're not reducing contemplative traditions to language games
• You are extracting something that works across cultural/metaphysical frameworks (Descriptive Evocation)
• You maintain that metaphorical/evocative language can catalyze genuine experiential shifts, not just regulate discourse within a sealed practice
• You're interested in dialogue and mutual enrichment across traditions, not just describing their separate grammars

So the Wittgensteinian "therapeutic dissolution" parallel was misleading. You're not dissolving problems by showing how language misleads—you're positively proposing a cross-cultural contemplative practice grounded in metaphor, epistemic humility, and attention to experience.

Descriptive Evocation as the Positive Core

Your characterization here is crucial:

Descriptive Evocation is NOT:

• A particular language game or form of life
• A system or ideology
• An "accurate description" claiming truth

Descriptive Evocation IS:

• A pedagogical practice using metaphor to catalyze experiential shifts
• Cross-culturally viable (works for atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, Hindus, Christians, etc.)
• Grounded in thin virtues widely distributed: fallibilism, epistemic humility, tolerance, compassion, respect for persons, attention to consequences
• Suggestive, invitational, open-ended
• Dialogical: as interested in what others bring as in what it offers

This is a positive contemplative framework that doesn't require settling metaphysical questions—which makes it fundamentally different from Wittgensteinian quietism.

The "Both Tiers Are Metaphysical" Insight

This changes everything because it shows:

1. The traditions can't claim neutral ground (their "ordinary experience" is already metaphysically loaded)
2. Your art-of-living approach offers something genuinely different (not just "focus on the lower tier instead of the higher")
3. Descriptive Evocation becomes the alternative (a way to work with attention, metaphor, and experience that doesn't require either tier's metaphysics)

This makes your position stronger and clearer: you're not just bracketing ultimate reality claims; you're stepping outside the entire two-tier framework (both levels) and offering a different kind of practice.

What Needs Mulling

I think these are the key questions to sit with:

1. Structure Question: How do we articulate the critique of two-tier systems (both tiers metaphysical, internally incoherent) and then introduce Descriptive Evocation as the positive alternative? What's the cleanest way to make that transition?

2. Descriptive Evocation Question: How does DE relate to what the traditions were trying to do? Is it:

• Extracting their actual practice beneath their metaphysical self-descriptions?
• Offering a parallel but non-metaphysical version of what they offer?
• Something genuinely new that learns from them but isn't reducible to them?

3. Intercultural Exchange Question: How does DE enable dialogue across traditions in ways the two-tier systems can't? What makes it genuinely cross-cultural rather than just another framework imposing itself?

4. Contemplative Practice Question: How do we articulate DE as a contemplative practice (not just a philosophical position) that cultivates attention, reduces suffering, enriches experience—without making metaphysical claims?

5. The "Thin Virtues" Question: You note DE requires tolerance, compassion, respect for persons, fallibilism, etc. How thick/thin are these really? Do they exclude more positions than we might initially think? (For example: Does genuine respect for persons exclude certain forms of hierarchy? Does attention to consequences exclude certain deontological commitments?)

My Suggestions for Your Reflection

As you re-read and think:

Pay attention to:

• Where the "both tiers are metaphysical" insight strengthens your existing arguments
• Where it requires reformulation (places where we were implicitly accepting "OE" as neutral ground)
• How it affects the transition from critique to positive proposal
• What it means for Descriptive Evocation as the alternative framework

Consider:

• Do you want DE to be the primary positive alternative, or is "art of living discourse" broader with DE as one central element?
• How much do you want to develop DE as contemplative practice vs. keeping it more abstract/philosophical?
• What examples of DE would best illustrate how it works cross-culturally?

Don't rush: This insight genuinely shifts the architecture of the argument. It's worth taking time to see its full implications before we try to formalize the revised structure.

My Role Going Forward

I'm here to:

• Think through implications with you as you process this
• Help articulate the revised structure once you've clarified your thinking
• Draft passages when you're ready
• Raise questions that might help clarify

But you're right to pause and reflect. The "both tiers are metaphysical" move is powerful—it deserves careful integration into the overall project rather than quick incorporation.

Take your time. I'll be here when you're ready to continue working through the implications, whether that's in a few hours or a few days. This is genuinely interesting philosophical work, and it's worth getting right.