Consilience

Applied metaphysics, epistemology, and ontology. A first person, existential investigation of direct experience.

Thank you for sharing ?? What an inspiring read

I feel like I understand the Intent of Ralston’s message here but it feels inappropriate to not acknowledge that some states of experience are more conducive towards existential realizations than others. Perhaps I misunderstand how to contemplate from his perspective but... yeah. For example, focus is HUGE. Good luck realizing your true nature if your attention is continually dragged away from one thought to the next. Why is this not acknowledged? I don’t know.

I must admit, my ego felt riled up watching, but it just goes to show how much more work I have to do. Very interesting video.

Oh damn just realized someone else posted this. Fee free to delete mods

Bingo

Definitely Kotor 2. Game had so so so much philosophy in it... I dont think Id ever have gotten into spirituality as an adult if not playing that game so thoroughly as a kid.

? nah no triggering but your response makes me laugh. Have a great day good sir. Im glad you’re aware that no one is aware and that you’re aware awareness is a lie

@Truth Addict then why say something as silly as “there’s no actual awareness” ? Who is aware at this supposed lack of awareness?

That’s the paradox of formlessness (awareness). It is literal nothing. You cannot point to nothing and yet it is the underlying nature of reality. Whenever one tries to talk about it yes of course duality arises. Real awareness, real formlessness, real nothingness can only be pointed to with language, and one can only become conscious of this absolute via itself. Awareness knows itself by being itself, awareness cannot point to itself. This is the key insight you misunderstand. To deny awareness is to deny your very direct experience.

This is amazing What’s your YouTube channel? Id love to check some of your videos out

"Epistemological realism is a philosophical position, a subcategory of objectivism, holding that what you know about an object exists independently of your mind. It opposes epistemological idealism. Epistemological realism is related directly to the correspondence theory of truth, which claims that the world exists independently and innately to our perceptions of it. Our sensory data then reflect or correspond to the innate world." - Wiki Epistemological Idealism is in line with what this community's approach to epistemology is. At least, that's what I'm assuming. Hadn't heard of this until tonight and felt like giving my armchair philosophy rant. What frustrates me about this perspective is that it very clearly is institutionally taken on by mainstream science and philosophy. I recall asking my philosophy of mind professor back in university what the academic philosophy's viewpoints where on materialism vs. idealism vs. dualism and he said the overwhelming majority of philosophers were materialist, which if the case, would mean their views on epistemology would correspond to this form of epistemology. But see their is a huge problem with this viewpoint. This form of epistemology requires the fact of an objective, material world to even work, even though a material world is already assumed within the arguments of this epistemology. The entire argument is circular, each stance relying on the other being an axiom. In other words, in order for epistemological realism to be a "correct" epistemology, it would require materialism as a starting point (axiom) and then vice versa. Moreover, it completely dismisses the subjectivity of our conscious experience. There is no such thing as "independent of your mind" unless one is referring to a state of no-mind, in which case there is no such thing as "independent of conscious experience." I don't see how it's possible to deny subjective conscious experience and I don't see how all of these high level thinkers don't how irrational this supposedly rational metaphysics is.nHow is it that the majority of academics don't see that all of our experience, OBJECTIVELY, *is* conscious experience? The 5 bodily senses and our minds all are various forms of consciousness... Yet because brain states correlate so consistently with conscious experiences they make the metaphysical assumption that consciousness is simply the brain, and that there exists an object-ive physical world. However, WHY does everyone miss the fact that this is, in the strictest, and even most rational sense (which is what these type of mind's tend to cling to), an assumption, an axiom, a metaphysical starting point taken on by faith? Where is the attachment to materialism coming from? Why so many great minds of humanity clinging to this philosophical assumption?

No response to my response? I was genuinely looking forward to objections haha

Where do brains appear? Awareness Where does the world appear? Awareness Where do mystical experiences occur? Awareness The distinction you must make is form vs. formlessness. Notice that form (physical brian states) can only interact with more form (conscious experience). But equally notice, that form cannot directly interact or manipulate formlessness (awareness). Form is great at interacting and manipulating itself, the 6 sensations (sight, taste, touch, sound, smell, mind) are all this entangled amalgamation we call reality. What you have to become conscious off is formlessness and moreover, that this formlessness is not only the underlying nature of reality, but it exists a priori to ALL forms within reality AND that form does not ever manipulate formlessness. Formlessness is infinite nothingness. Form only interacts with more form in a strange loop like manor (watch leo’s strange loop video to understand this phenomena more deeply) Sorry if this sounds redundant but Im trying to drill home this distinction is needed to understand why brains do not generate consciousness. Brains correspond with various experiences but not consciousness itself. I wont even say create conscious experiences because causality is its own rabbit hole not worth getting into.

this makes me so happy

@Scholar Me explaining anything with words by default creates a framework. You are mistaken, however. Direct experience needs no framework. Idealism is a language based framework to explain and communicate actuality but all linguistic communication is framework based. You need to read between the lines my friend.

Idealism doesnt require axioms other than that experience is evident. This is the only axiom required which is self evident. Existence validates itself. There is form, look into your direct experience and verify this. The contradiction comes from using epistemological realism as your epistemological framework for proving materialism because E.R. itself requires an objective world to already be true(aka materialism), by definition which is what I pointed out in the op. Moreover, materialism requires E.R. as an epistemology to be qualified as a true metaphysics. Actual direct experience is the most objective pov because it is the only aspect of reality we can be certain of. Naive realism throws extra metaphysics on-top of the actuality of direct experience, which when looked at, this extra metaphysic’s substance is more mind, which is more form being observed as direct experience. This isnt even taking into account the infinite regress problem all forms of rationality have when trying to make truth claims (all axioms ultimately either having to be taken on as faith or having to have their own logical arguments for why they are true, which then require more axioms). The only axiom we can find within reality is the axiom of direct experience. If you cannot see this, if you are not aware of this observation, I cannot help you.

@Jakeem Ortiz Great explanation

@Scholar Because philosophers, whether they’re aware of it or not, hold it as true even though naive realism is a metaphysical belief with axioms that have to be taken on as faith in order to work, which is contradictory to the rationality they further hold as being the end all be all tool for truth seeking. Moreover, naive realism when examined from the most objective point of view (actual direct experience) is an untenable stance, but this is not acknowledged. Does that make sense?

@Inliytened1 great points. @How to be wise Yes that’s true. I guess I never saw a snake in the first place and it’s confusing to me that the bulk of society sees and argues for the snake.

@Scholar I don’t believe in idealism. I observe the actuality of direct experience, and this observation can then be conceptualized as idealism. Idealism as a theory is still not it. @Jakeem Ortiz Thanks I’ll definitely check it out

??

Great report man. Really happy that book worked out for you and great advice on finding what works. Also jealous you got to talk with Doshin. He has a great youtube channel. Although I don't have ADHD, I had been getting frustrated with persistent mind wandering during my own meditation sessions, and actually ended up buying the book upon @ardacigin's recommendation as well. And I was too blown away with how much sense the approach made and the quick results I was getting. It seems that in order for one to stablize various existential insights into everyday experience, concentration ability is a great tool for this integration. At least it has been for me. SO learning how concentration naturally cultivates and develops over time on the meditation path was huge. Another +1 to The Mind Illuminated as a great meditation resource.

@Truth Addict why do you hate him exactly..?

Boom. The analogy fits. When you can understand how, then you’ll have an answer to your question.