#n01

Darshana
Hindu Philosophy

The question is, "what is the point-i equivalent of existence with all its subtleties?"

A comparison of Western and Eastern philosophy.

#n02

The "we" of the East is the collectivistically facilitated I-hierarchy, Narcissismus

#n03

What is the Eastern concept of the idea Word as what experts have, to think and speak?

Shabda.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_philosophy : Overview.

Ancient and medieval Hindu texts identify six pramāṇas as correct means of accurate knowledge and truths:

Pratyakṣa - Direct perception
Anumāṇa - Inference or indirect perception
Upamāṇa - Comparison and analogy
Arthāpatti - Postulation, derivation from circumstances
Anupalabdi - Non-perception, absence of proof
Shabda - Word, testimony of past or present reliable experts

If everything is word, pramāṇa (epistemology) is one of the most inclusive self-contradictions that is the mayhem of the hierarchical contest in general and the markets of supply and demand with democracy and republic respectively as more comprehensive measures of trying to civilize the contest thereby only facilitating it to greater depths, of begging the question ad hominem.

Re. 20210422#n05
Question from member of Non-dual Conversations.

Pierre on a scale of 1 to 10 where 1 means "Not at all" and 10 means "Very much so" how important is to you that other members of the group understand your comments?

#n04

Note to Thad Roberts and myself

I had a mathematics instructor at UT Austin who in every lecture writing on the blackboard repeated the math basic to any math in focus, to the right of it. Of course then the math basic to such more basic math could be in a footnote.

I am just saying, Thad Roberts that your videos seem to either wrongly assume knowledge of the math or that those who have not gone to the trouble of learning the math or have not been able to, need not be in the picture. If the math is so important, then you should go to the trouble of explaining it in your books, in layers, once, as I believe should be very easy for you, instead of your readers with great difficulty, many times. I too am engaged in a very esoteric subject, far more so than you, so this is a note to myself to organize my website that way... at least three layers formally but more than three implied.

Or could I be wrong about this point?

#n05

The Bloom(1956)-Anderson-Kratwohl(2001) taxonomy is adaptable to point-i,

... namely not as a taxonomy of knowledge but the taxonomy that everything is. Not that word is a taxonomy, but that if the question is not existence or agency in other words, ultimately "to create," every level is point-i, namely that everything is word.

#n06

A Taxonomy is what something is, which is that it is word.

The 2001 adaptation of the Bloom taxonomy as far as more useable for metacognitive knowledge is metastasis.

The problem is that the most complex level is agentive, or verb, namely "to create."

#n07

Any complexity(n) is word. Word is not taxonomy(what n is). What n is, is word.

#n08

#n09

#n10