Jakeem Ortiz

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Jakeem Ortiz

  • Rank

Personal Information

  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

151 profile views
  1. I actually recently became conscious of this answer and it has to do with the notions absolute infinity and infinite consciousness. Consciousness being what it is and the unfalsifiability of all fundamental views of reality like Solipsism, idealism and materialism. The answer was so abstract that at this moment I won't be able to give a good coherent explanation as I am not directly conscious of this truth anymore. All I can tell you now is that you asked a really good question and there is a complete satisfactory answer to this which thus far has not been elucidated in any of the previous replies in this thread.
  2. @Revolutionary Think No, leo simply recounts his experiences of the absolute and tells us like it is. The problem here is that you're being given a glimpse of the endgoal before you've even remotely gotten there. Divine love is something you slowly and gradually learn how to do and it is genuinely born of understanding. Instead of trying to force yourself to love everything (which won't work), try to acquire understanding of the absolute because that will naturally result in the blossoming forth of unconditional love. Leo essentially got there many times and so he's simply letting us know what's there.
  3. Recommendation: Try to directly realize how every word in a language IS literally the thing that it stands for. Something absolutely profound stands to be understood from this. I actually briefly attained a sublime state of consciousness on 3.5 grams of magic mushrooms when I did this. I realized an ultimate truthh, only to be thrust back into ignorance upon waking up sober again.
  4. Look up what Later Wittgenstein has to say about so-called apriori systems of thought like metaphysical propositions and logical rules and mathematical statements and synthetic apriori and other necessary truths. He beautifully recontextualizes them into the notion of "normative grammar" and dispels the perspective that causes laws and principles to appear immutable because they are somehow unchanging external realities imposed upon us. Witt does a completely convincing 180 and turns that notion on its head. It is definitely a good way for comprehending how 1 + 1 = 2 is in fact NOT absolute as one is naturally inclined to believe. Check out the free PDFs of wittgenstein and normative grammar and the apriori.
  5. @Scholar I accidentally didn't read your whole reply. My first impression was that if realism was equally true then that means the realist is literally inventing the noumena just by conceiving of the notion. Then I read your whole reply and saw hints of that idea. That is just too cool and I am clearly light-years away from sufficiently appreciating that notion, I don't even know how I would begin to approach attaining direct realization of what you're pointing to beyond all doubt. I stand corrected, very very interesting. Reminds me of the word "transcendental".
  6. @Scholar Very interesting, I must admit then that I have no idea what you're talking about. "Fucking magic", I like that, I wish I could understand. Cheers!
  7. @Scholar This should put it to bed. The reason I don't call it realism is because of what I've explained in my last post. Realism either completely denies consciousness, which is absurd or it posits another fundamental reality that is not consciousness. From this understanding I cannot help but acknowledge that the realist is manifestly wrong. When as you say, the realist realizes there is only consciousness and thus understands that realism And idealism are one, in my opinion that's the same as saying the realist has directly realized the truth of idealism and has ceased to be a realist, realism has now been completely recontextualization but even more so than that, it has been redefined and realized at the same time. Whereas the idealist who believes that all is only consciousness is in the same boat as the realist who has not attained enlightenment, both have no direct consciousness of the truth. The difference being, that when the idealist realizes the truth, it finds that it's prior belief that all was consciousness is quintessentially true and that realism is false. But again, at this point we're arguing semantics, because we both evidently agree on the same meanings, we just don't agree on how to express them.
  8. @Scholar Actually I totally can, I don't know how you can't see that. Again we both completely agree on everything yet you are confusing everything I say, probably because you still think you dont have to do any of the readings I recommended about language and conventions. How do we agree? Simple, you just said from the pov of enlightenment, the realist has no choice but to admit that consciousness is all there is and therefore realism is idealism, I literally 100% agree with you, no disagreement there whatsoever. The realist prior to that however believes that there is either consciousness plus something that is not consciousness or even that there is no consciousness at all. The idealist in contrast prior to enlightenment believes that there is only consciousness, the difference between the enlightened and unenlightened idealist is that one is merely adhering to a conceptual framework that is defined in contrast to the opposing views while in the enlightened mode, one is simply directly experiencing the truth without it having to be compared or contrasted to anything. The realist on the other hand necessarily believes that there is such a thing as something that is not consciousness, while the unenlightened idealist believes in only consciousness. The idealist has a true belief but does not directly experience the truth while the unenlightened realist has a false belief and is also not directly conscious of the truth. I assure you the rest of our disagreements and probably any future disagreements are merely semantic in nature , im positive they are.
  9. @Scholar also, I agree with you on the topic being which was more rational, we got talking about OR because it is a rational tool that "conceivably" could have been used to favor idealism over materialism. I agree that a materialists would not find that agrument satisfactory however and I even provided an explanation for why. Ultimately I expressed numerous times that I was against someone relying upon any form of rational or logical, empirical or otherwise explanations as conditions for accepting idealism. This implies albeit subtly that I am against the notion of idealism as a conceptual framework to be believed in. Instead, I advocated for direct experience of idealism truth, here my use of the term "idealism" is different as I previously expressed in a prior comment, here I use "idealism" to mean whatisness and NOT the conceptual framework. So all in all so far I am agreeing with everything you've said. I'm just saying it differently and you keep missing the point.
  10. @Scholar if you'd simply take my advice you'd know what I'm talking about. Wittgensteins meaning as use is the key here but without that understanding you keep making the same mistakes. One of the things you fail to understand is that I actually agree with you. Simply believing in idealism as a philosophical perspective is not going to make you directly conscious of the true nature of reality. I think what's going on here is a confusion caused by conflation of meanings. Idealism is just a word and its meaning is however someone happens to be using it at the time. Idealism can refer to a belief system or me and meta sage like to use it, it can refer to whatisness. The problem here is that you're not paying enough attention to how I'm using the term in my speech to correctly grasp what I'm talking about(and honestly it's probably not your fault, unless we consistently give an explanation of meaning for every expression we use to communicate a thought, these misunderstandings are bound to happen.)
  11. @Consilience How about you take the rest of my advice after that first part though, I want us to learn from each other. Secondly, "reading between the lines", no bullshit I actually like that you said that, it's a skill I have expressed interest in developing and now you just inspired me to get a move on that. You see, I suspect that the essence of the means by which one grasps or understands someone else's use of language is quite literally some form of 'telepathy' for lack of a better term but I digress and more can be said about this point. One more thing though, we both are not sufficiently telepathic so if we could really not nitpick over misunderstanding that would be great. Secondly, when you explain idealism in contrast to direct experience like that, I now understand where you are coming from and I have to say that I agree with you completely, idealism is a framework whereas direct experience is what simply is, pure being. Here's the thing though, when I or even Leo (I imagine) say that idealism is true, we are simply using the term idealism to stand for actuality or direct experience. Also, idealism is a term generally used in reaction to materialism. It's like your entire life people have been saying there is an external world and matter is prior to mind and all that stuff, even though the exact opposite is true. So you have to invent new terminology to describe what is actually already the case in contradiction to what everyone erroneously has taken for given(materialism, realism,etc.) So from that perspective, idealism now looks like some newly posited philosophical position. We are honestly arguing semantics though. While I agree with you that I need to learn to read between the lines, I really suggest you develop the skill of grasping the point of what somebody intends to say and don't distract yourself on the nuances of the terminology. Also, really take a look at the reading material I recommended, it'll really help. Edit: I guess you can consider this a proxy reply, I thought your reply was directed at me, I was mistaken.
  12. @Scholar Firstly, you can call direct experience whatever you want, I am using the term in the broadest way I can so don't overthink it, it's like nitpicking over me saying "can I have some food" and you say "I don't know CAN you". By Direct experience, I essentially mean what Leo G means by "Actuality" and what Meta Sage means by Pure Awareness. Are you going to deny this self-evident experience you're having right now? The whole point was to establish a starting position that conceivably everyone can agree on, so try to interpret my words correctly by not focusing so much on the specific nuances of the terms I happened to use and instead try to grasp at what I'm trying to get at. The terms Direct experience and pure awareness and Actuality are 'marker' words or hints for the meaning that corresponds to that which we could all agree is the case at least for our own selves. Secondly, I am against using OR, which I know to be a Maxim and I'm aware of its primary uses, etc. I was simply showing how one could hypothetically use OR to support idealism over materialism. I am personally against the usage of any kind of rationalist methods to come to an understanding of idealism as true. I personally think phenomenology is better suited a technique for gradually raising one's consciousness to the perceptions of self-evident truths that we simply lack lucidity of, like idealism for example. Thirdly, when it comes to synthetic apriori statements like the kind you just made (whether you are aware of that or not), statements like, "any principle you will establish....." are being made out of lack of awareness of the true nature of language, logic and the so-called apriori necessary truths. I implore you to go on Google and search for a PDF document explaining Later Wittgensteins recontextualization of logic and apriori truths in terms of 'normative grammar', it is very enlightening and I think this will help you get around these issues. Fourthly, I also advise looking into what the Buddhist sage Nagarjuna had to say about conventions and ultimate reality. There's a lot of useful insights and i won't go into here (including 'tetralemma', '2 truths doctrine', etc.) But I will say this, you don't have to abandone the use of conventions, this includes uses of language and even logic. In true nonduality fashion, you're going to instead seek the way to using conventions (ie; useful fictions) skillfully to your advantage in life while also not letting them control you (via being vexed philosophical problems and paradoxes or being compelled to accept certain conclusions of logic because you believe logical rules actually exist independent of your mind and will, etcetera). Hopefully this too can help produce some clarity for "getting around these issues". Good Luck!
  13. @Scholar One could certainly make the observation that what is definitely the case regardless of anything else, is that there is this present direct experience. Now, if we try to explain the underlying nature of this direct experience, we compare 2 prominent possible answers 1. Materialism 2. Idealism Going off of Occam's Razor alone, we can make the case for Idealism being the more viable perspective. Why? Let's review the basics of OR, it basically states that all things being equal, the simplest explanation (the one that admits the fewest parts) is to be preferred. Materialism basically posits an entire extra realm of the noumena that by definition cannot even be directly perceived, in order to explain our direct experience. Whereas Idealism simply has direct experience and does not posit any other additional entities to explain the same phenomenon. Idealism then has fewer parts and is the simpler of the two cases. Thus by OR standards, idealism is to be preferred over materialism. The way materialists get around this however is through a feat of mental gymnastics. They reason that the positing of extra entities is justified if they can carry sufficient explanatory power that they perceive the opposite viewpoint as lacking. Extra entities can sort of buy immunity from OR if they can provide explanations for things that the other perspective has as of yet been unable to provide explanations for on the same level. A materialists will be happy to point out to you the successes of Science which has as a supposition, the unsupported claim of an external material world. Then they flip the script and take materialism as the given and call idealism the new unsupported claim. Even though idealism is actually the given, which needs no support empirical, rational or otherwise because it is pure being, prior to all conceptualization and thus as simple as you can get. All that remains is to be directly conscious of this fact, which is why I advise against ultimately relying on rational or logical or scientific forms of evidence for idealism and instead invite you to simply be conscious of this truth that is already the case and self-evidently so.
  14. One case you could make is appealing to Occam's Razor maxim. Though I personally think idealism should ultimately be accepted from a position of higher consciousness and not on any reliance upon logical systems of explanation.
  15. I recommend an album called "Language" by 'The Contortionist'