Joshe

Is that how Truth works? Does it toggle on or off depending on your conceptual/perceptual frame? If it's true in one, it must be true in the other.

Think of a game where your avatar is on a tiny sliver a map and you can only see a small portion of the map and the only way to see the rest of the map is to traverse it. If the player is approached by a lone peaceful traveler and the traveler tells the player the truth of the map, they cannot know for sure. They have to make the difficult trek. They cannot avoid the complexity.

Only once you know that. From your vantage point, there is no complexity, but only because you've traversed a very complex landscape to find that truth.

But you have go through complexity to see that. Otherwise, how can one know they didn't miss anything? lol. You can tell a newbie - "Just surrender and let go", but that will almost never work, IMO.

You can't have complexity without the thinking mind. But one does not even start a meditation practice without the thinking mind. How did one arrive at the idea of meditation? Did they read a book full of abstract ideas and then pondered those ideas with the thinking mind before they decided to give it a try? Did they put "meditation" on the slate of consciousness for examination? And when they meditated, did they observe the nature of thought and draw conclusions about what they experienced relative to what the book said? Of course they did. This is all complex (not simple).

It's not that minds love to create complexity, it's that they strive for answers/solutions. It's in seeking the solutions where complexity arises, but when most minds don't have any problems they're trying to solve, they are happy at rest and actually prefer simplicity. Some minds have a high Need for Cognition and some are neurotic and some are just bored. These minds DO seek and manufacture complexity, but this isn't the majority of humans. The majority of humans avoid complexity as much as they can. Also, "complexity" is relative. What I'm saying is you cannot avoid complexity. Can you find a solution or the truth without delving into the complex? Most often not. The whole process of problem-solving and truth-seeking is inherently complex. You're seeking abstract answers to abstract things. You could only say the truth is simple once you've traversed the complex landscapes and found it such. You do not arrive at "the truth just is" without engaging with much complexity.

Most minds love simplicity. Also, one can not know what is unnecessary complexity without having traversed that landscape and seen their folly, so how can it know when it's being too simple or too complex? You can tell it "Hey, you're being too simple, think harder" or "you're being too complex, don't think as much", but how can the mind even have a good clue as to which is right? Only one way to know.

Your beef is with reality. Play its game and abide by its rules and both you AND reality will be happy. There is no other way out. Doesn't matter if you're 25 or 90. It always asks the same thing. Play by the rules: facilitate evolution. Even if you choose to not facilitate, it will you use as an example to show others what they will become if they shirk the responsibility.

All this shows is that you can be a despised villain of earth and still not have many hoops to jump through to be seen as a peacemaker.

😂Fuckin mirror effect, obviously!

Nah bruh - you can't let them know they have the upperhand. They have to know when push comes to shove, you're the shot-caller. Women actually have a need to be dominated in this way so they can feel safe. (most women) You're dealing with a Christian, which introduces interesting variables. They can be tamed, but it's different. There probably aren't any books out there about it. Let me know if you want to strategize. This is right up my alley. Lol, . "How to convert an evangelical female". I'd have my fucking work cut out for me. I never shy away from a challenge though.

@Inliytened1 What do you make of THIS reality? The everyday reality. Here and now. Is it just an illusion? Is it some sort of purgatory? Some sort of lesser reality?

Princess, you got a person who makes a post on a forum about how their life isn't working out the way they'd like. Then, someone does their best to respond (which is largely the purpose of online forums), and you basically tell the responder they're deluded because they don't operate from your perspective: "You want to save the world, but you can't. Life is expressing itself. Life doesn't need help, it doesn't need anything. It plays itself out. Even your response is also an expression and my comment to you is neither needed nor not needed." It's true, they can't save the world. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't try to respond in a way they feel would be helpful, right? You're cold. Open that heart chakra girl! TF is wrong with you? 😂

Give 20% and let them think it's 45 when it's more like 80.

I've witnessed some crazy shit, but knowing all was never a thing. I've rode light beams across the universe. I've experienced eternity in a single second. I've bent time and space. I've seen literal sound and heard sight. And before all that, I was questioning consciousness since I was 4 years old. But I've never experienced omniscience. Based on all my travels, I feel very safe in saying that if I did experience it, I would chalk it up as either a transient delusion or an interesting truth that isn't compatible with the current reality. Not to diminish the absurdity of it all - it's all absolutely insane and what can be imagined can be witnessed, but when the dust settles and you have to explain your experience and function in the reality before you this very moment, it's irresponsible to cling to your imaginatory revelations. THIS reality YOU are in NOW is THE actual reality that exists. If it's not clear, THIS reality is DOMINANT for A reason. You want to escape it or want it to be different, but reality demands THIS reality be dominant. My middle name is david, btw. lol

It doesn't matter what is happening outside myself right now. Since I'm talking to you, I assume you're a human on some kind of keyboard, because the dream requires that degree of coherence in order to persist. And since you mentioned a "chair", my guess is you're in a chair right now instead of a bed. But these are only abstractions that I come to be aware of as reality provides me this information. Reality reveals the truth of these abstractions as it unfolds. I do not know them before they present themselves. But omniscience is the state of knowing all. So maybe you shouldn't have used the word "omniscient". Maybe should have used a word like "construct-aware"? At the least, admit the word "omniscience" was misused.

It is a dream, and everything is imaginary. Particles are - like everything else in the dream, (including omniscience), imaginary. Particles are part of the dream if you invoke them, same as "omniscience". Back to the here and now: Does your omniscience require inquiry and effort or is your omniscience automatic? If you are truly omniscient inside a reality (that includes me) that has the potential for infinite abstractions within infinite abstractions, then you should be able to tell me about those abstractions that I otherwise wouldn't know without you telling me. So, what did I have for lunch and how did it impact my gut health? If you can't answer, then what exactly do you mean by "omniscient"?

No matter how much I disagree with you, I do like you among the best here. 😆TBH, it's because your profile picture. I can tell who you are from your profile pic alone. Last I recall, you were going through a rough time, so I hope all is well now. All good? Onto the substance: You cannot know reality fully and completely. If you could, can you tell me the exact position and composition of every particle in my body? If you can't, can you explain why? Could you answer this question even from your highest altered state? Obviously, you cannot answer these questions. Maybe you will answer "Those are just abstractions that don't exist, therefore not knowable." Weak, but ok. Thing is, I know that when I cease to exist, everything ceases to exist. But I know that I cannot cease to exist because I'm all there is and all that ever will be. But I get no special privilege from this knowledge. So what benefit is gained by knowing this? OP asked "What's the point?" What do you gain? Aside from some special subjective feeling? NOTHING! That's all there is 😂! You gain absolutely nothing except some idea. Some knowing how the magic trick works. I'm open to being wrong.

It's about time Schizo clued us in on all his mysterious ramblings. Interesting and plausible, but they don't hold up or are at least insufficient, as was Freud. Good and interesting insights to explore- but psychological coherence? No. It's true that childhood attention seeking strategies persists into adulthood, but the whole psycho-sexual frame is clearly absurd. @Schizophonia - move past Freud. You have a good foundation and good intuition, but Freud is keeping you stuck. You have to look at human psychology from your own analytic lens. Don't presuppose the pioneers got it right. They didn't. You have to take from multiple pioneers, and even more importantly, your own observations, so you don't get locked into a paradigm you didn't create. It's great to see how other paradigms comport with reality (which you do exceptionally well), but you also have to see where they fail. That benchmark has to come from your own observation of the subject matter. You're still young. Just watch humans for the next 2-3 years with no framework. Maybe your own framework will emerge. That's the path the other pioneers took. If the predominant psychologist of the time gets hung up on sexuality, of course it will seep into the psychological theory.

You can't fully understand reality. The whole pursuit is neurotic. Even if you could, you're a human. So guess what, you're understanding would amount to that of understanding how David Copperfield moves mountains. Once the magic trick is revealed, the magic is no longer magic. Back to reality. Which is why they say "chop wood carry water" before AND after enlightenment. This concept is important. What do you think you're going to achieve with some "mental recognition" or some "mental knowing"? All you have is some "special knowledge" from your meditation or psychedelic cushion that 99% of people could care less about. You can sit there and yell "YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND" for a few years until you get tired. Reality itself is entirely magical. Obviously. And you can be absolutely thrilled by it. But to hope to possess some special knowing that others don't have access to - then you're heading into psychosis. Even if you did reach that point, your best play is to keep your mouth shut and just appreciate the magic. As soon as you start professing how much you know about the magic, it's time to begin an entirely new inquiry.

When a fellow human makes a communication to other humans that they're life seems hopeless, what is the proper response? Is it to stay quiet and be indifferent because it's all a fiction? You seem to provide no value beyond telling others how they responded poorly, so I want to know specifically, what is the proper response, from your paradigm? How would you respond, human-to-human, to a human who said to you "hey Princess - I'm feeling like my life is hopeless and I'm having a hard time figuring out how to move forward".

"Safety" is a drive, not a value. It's reactionary, not proactive. The whole idea of a life purpose course assumes being proactive - taking initiative from a place of meaning, not fear. That said, your confusion is understandable because values are not fully stable - they're context-dependent. One day you might value this and the next day you value that. What you value at any given time depends on many circumstantial variables, which makes the exercise difficult. But still, there are identifiable patterns that persist for long periods of time that you naturally gravitate toward regardless of survival. These are the things to identify. These patterns remain relatively constant across life seasons. The domain might change, but the signature stays the same. A good question is "What problems do I most enjoy solving?" For example, I have this motivation to explore complexity and make it simple but only if it results in real-world benefit for myself or others. This motivation is detectable in nearly everything I do of my own volition. It's why I'm fascinated with human psychology and software engineering. I'm not into "psychology" or "software engineering". I'm into "useful coherence". Point is, there's an underlying motivation beneath all your interests and activities. Something at your core - after survival - that drives you. The idea is not to figure out a domain, but the underlying motivation: your "post-survival drive". Once you find it, point that motivation at whatever domains make sense at that time, given your specific circumstances and opportunities. I wouldn't worry too much about domain so long as you get to exercise your post-survival drive. Doors will open in time. Side note: I'd be cautious with the whole "life purpose" paradigm. I think it's more about "life trajectory". A single purpose isn't compatible with life because life is inherently too chaotic. "Life purpose" is a control fantasy and not suitable for most humans.

Kirk’s business model wasn’t centered around spreading the gospel. It was to diminish and humiliate all non-Christians. It was all in bad faith. This is very clear. Just because one is unconscious of their evil, that shouldn’t exonerate them. Unconscious evil produces very similar results as conscious evil. Im not saying turn them into devils, just that there’s a trap of not rightly calling out that which is detrimental because one has identified the evil-doer as “low consciousness and they know not what they do” and deep down, they’re a good human. Seems to me, cause and effect is the most consistent principle in reality. It trumps human intent. If we’re quoting scripture “Know them by their fruits”. The effects caused by evil, conscious or not, should not be swept under the rug, nor clung to and used to hate, but they should be condemned or called out and rejected should one find themselves in a situation where their influence matters. Cons and opportunists often rely on a veneer of virtue. Don’t be fooled motha fuckas.

The idea is solid and still hasn’t been done properly, which seems odd. People have attempted but all attempts have been weak. If you could figure out how to package the idea for mass consumption, could be a million dollar idea.

Seems odd to me to split reality into two buckets. When you conjure the construct or allow it to slip away, there’s the relative. Both are experiences that share the same background. They’re both just conceptual toggles.