Mason Riggle

@Endangered-EGO you can't stop 'being how you are' because you're not doing it. 'You' are something that is happening, not something that 'does things'. Can you stop growing your hair? No, because you aren't doing that. Your hair is growing. Can you 'change your thoughts'? No, because you aren't thinking your thoughts. Your thoughts are thinking.

There is one thing we can know for sure.. that something seems to be happening, rather than nothing. We might be totally confused about the contents of our experience, we may be dreaming, or in a simulation, or a hallucination for example, but our experience is 'self evident'.

"There are, of course, good reasons for scientists to be materialist, neo-Darwinian, and reductionist. However, science entails none of those commitments, nor do they entail one another. If there were evidence for dualism (immaterial souls, reincarnation), one could be a scientist without being a materialist. As it happens, the evidence here is extraordinarily thin, so virtually all scientists are materialists of some sort. If there were evidence against evolution by natural selection, one could be a scientific materialist without being a neo-Darwinist. But as it happens, the general framework put forward by Darwin is as well established as any other in science. If there were evidence that complex systems produced phenomena that cannot be understood in terms of their constituent parts, it would be possible to be a neo-Darwinist without being a reductionist. For all practical purposes, that is where most scientists find themselves, because every branch of science beyond physics must resort to concepts that cannot be understood merely in terms of particles and fields. Many of us have had “philosophical” debates about what to make of this explanatory impasse. Does the fact that we cannot predict the behavior of chickens or fledgling democracies on the basis of quantum mechanics mean that those higher-level phenomena are something other than their underlying physics? I would vote “no” here, but that doesn’t mean I envision a time when we will use only the nouns and verbs of physics to describe the world. But even if one thinks that the human mind is entirely the product of physics, the reality of consciousness becomes no less wondrous, and the difference between happiness and suffering no less important. Nor does such a view suggest that we will ever find the emergence of mind from matter fully intelligible; consciousness may always seem like a miracle. In philosophical circles, this is known as “the hard problem of consciousness”—some of us agree that this problem exists, some of us don’t. Should consciousness prove conceptually irreducible, remaining the mysterious ground for all we can conceivably experience or value, the rest of the scientific worldview would remain perfectly intact. The remedy for all this confusion is simple: We must abandon the idea that science is distinct from the rest of human rationality. When you are adhering to the highest standards of logic and evidence, you are thinking scientifically. And when you’re not, you’re not. " - Sam Harris "I quote John Lennon, 'I don't believe in Beatles, I just believe in me.' Good point there. After all, he was the walrus. I could be the walrus. I'd still have to bum rides off people.” - Ferris Bueller

'Infinite Parallel' is an oxymoron. Infinite = 'oneness', Parallel implies 'separateness'.

Thanks! Here's a few more treasures, sifted from the shit pile. "Lose your self in the moment" - Marshal Bruce Mathers III "One must forego the self to obtain total spiritual creaminess, and avoid the chewy chunks of degradation." - Ace Ventura, Pet Detective

Recognize that 'you', the experiencer of your experience, doesn't 'do' anything other than 'experience your experience', and it's always doing that without ever trying to. You are 'being you' automatically, in every moment. 'Trying to be yourself' and 'trying not to be yourself' are the same thing.. they are both 'what you are doing', which is 'being you', and you're always doing that, without ever trying.

"⁠Whatever else consciousness may or may not be in physical terms, the difference between it and unconsciousness is first and foremost a matter of subjective experience. Either the lights are on, or they are not." - Sam Harris "To say that consciousness may only seem to exist is to admit its existence in full—for if things seem any way at all, that is consciousness. Even if I happen to be a brain in a vat at this moment—all my memories are false; all my perceptions are of a world that does not exist—the fact that I am having an experience is indisputable (to me, at least). This is all that is required for me (or any other conscious being) to fully establish the reality of consciousness. Consciousness is the one thing in this universe that cannot be an illusion." - Sam Harris

"It's always now" - Sam Harris It's always now = consciousness is infinite.

Even when you don't realize it, nothing else remains.

“You are not controlling the storm, and you are not lost in it. You are the storm.” ― Sam Harris Sam Harris doesn't 'get it'.. he IS it.

If it's going to happen, it will happen. If not, then it won't. The thing is, you are something that is happening, not something that 'does things'. The only thing you really ever do is 'be like yourself', and you're always doing it, without ever trying to. Asking why Enlightenment is random is like asking, 'why does my hair grow how it does?'. You're not 'growing your hair'.. your hair is growing how it does. If it grows out of your head this way and that, then that's how it grows. The same is true for your thoughts. You aren't 'thinking thoughts'. Thoughts are occurring.. and just like your hair growing... you never have to try to do it. Be how you are in every moment, because 'being how you are' is all you ever do. (what else can you do?) Good luck!

@Nemo28 then what are you worried about? Perhaps recognize that the 'you' who is aware of what your organism is doing doesn't actually 'do anything' other than 'be aware' of what it's doing. Just be you.. it's the only thing you ever do anyhow. Trying to be like yourself, and trying not to be like yourself are both 'what you are doing'.. and 'what you are doing' is always 'being you', and you never have to try to do it.

“If you get the message, hang up the phone. For psychedelic drugs are simply instruments, like microscopes, telescopes, and telephones. The biologist does not sit with eye permanently glued to the microscope, he goes away and works on what he has seen.” ― Alan Watts

This thread just reminded me of something funny that I used to do on the forum that I used to host on my website (years and years ago) to help eliminate some of the cursing (it was an all ages forum)... I wrote some code that would simply replace certain words with silly words.. so for example, if someone typed in 'fuck', when they posted it, it would appear as 'farm'... it was hilarious.. buncha mother farmers.

@Vibroverse You really can't 'stop being present'. Whatever you are experiencing (thought patterns, no thought patterns, pure awareness, dreams) is your 'present experience'. It is always now. What Vibroverse is telling you is.. awareness of 'now' is all there is, and awareness doesn't 'do anything' beyond 'being aware'. The 'you' who you feel like you are is something that is occurring now, and not something that 'does things'. Do not fear death. “Death is nothing to us. When we exist, death is not; and when death exists, we are not. All sensation and consciousness ends with death and therefore in death there is neither pleasure nor pain. The fear of death arises from the belief that in death, there is awareness.” ― Epicurus

Mind doesn't 'do anything' besides 'be how it is'. There is only 'what is occurring now', and it's always (eternally) now.

Explaining non-duality is tricky, because 'explanation' is dualistic. Non duality is a cup. Duality is knowing what a cup is in terms of 'inside of the cup vs outside of a cup'. We can't understand what 'the inside of a cup' is without a notion of 'the outside of a cup'. Similarly we can't make sense of 'non-duality' in 'non dual' terms. There is 'one thing', reality (non-dual), but to describe 'one thing' requires duality (one thing as opposed to many things).

"Man often meets his fate along the path he took to avoid it."

I try to answer people's questions about my personal beliefs as honestly as possible, and leave it at that. They can take from it what they wish. Not my concern.

I did not write this, but I found it very interesting- "“Hypocrisy” has two, similar, main meanings. The first is claiming (directly or indirectly) to adhere to some moral standard that one does not in fact adhere to. The second is the practice of criticising in others what one does oneself. I propose that according to the first definition (though not according to the second) it is impossible to admit to hypocrisy, as the very act of admitting to hypocrisy absolves one from that hypocrisy. I often see it proposed that we have an obligation to ‘call out’ abuse whenever we see it. Usually, this means abuse only towards people that the person (the one telling us to ‘call out’ abuse) doesn’t like, and especially not abuse by people they do like. This is hypocrisy, as they are claiming a moral standard that they do not really believe in. I claim that we must always be reasonable, consider the evidence, and remain civil at all times. Do I always manage to adhere to this myself? No. I am a hypocrite. However, by admitting that I am a hypocrite, I am no longer a hypocrite, as hypocrisy requires that I claim or imply that I hold to a particular moral standard myself. My admission means that I am denying that I hold to such a moral standard, and therefore I cannot be accused of hypocrisy after such an admission. In fact, the admission retroactively becomes false, and it might be claimed that making a false admission is the act of a hypocrite." Thoughts?

1) https://skepticink.com/notung/2014/11/13/the-hypocrisy-paradox/ 2) no, because of the first definition of hypocrisy, by admitting to being a hypocrite, you are not a hypocrite. A similar paradox is 'this statement is false'.. if it's true, then it's false.

I don't remember which video (I think in his Spiral Dynamics series) he does indeed talk about this 'trap'. He warns not to think of 'lower' and 'higher' along the 'spiral' as 'better' or 'worse'. The SD Model is just a model, and not perfect representation, and so any 'visualization' or 'representation' is going to be relative. For example.. which way does time flow? We say it's one directional.. but which direction? What does 'into the future' mean without being relative to 'away from the past'? Does that mean that 'the future' is 'better' than 'the past'? No, that would be a silly way to think about this duality.

The color on the bottle said 'Deep Bronze'.

@datamonster it becomes problematic when Governments enact laws that prohibit free expression. When Twitter, or Google, or Apple, or Facebook create policies, and censor content with the aim of safeguarding against violence, exploitation of minors, racism, etc. this is not in any way an infringement on anyone's freedom of expression. The conflation of these two things is the real problem.