High-valance

The general concern seems to be why we can't control the world at will. In other words why the dynamics of the world unfolds independently of the volition of the ego if everything is imaginary/mental. There's at least one model of a mind-only view of reality which explains this. According to it the observable universe is being generated by the part of universal consciousness to which we generally have no introspective access. You can sort of think of it like a dream that's being generated by a so called 'subconscious' or obfuscated part of consciousness that determines the dynamics according to which the dream or the dreamt up/imagined/mentally created universe/world unfolds through a chain of cognitive associations between the obfuscated part of consciousness and the experience of the imagined dream world. Like a thought can trigger an emotion which can trigger a memory which can trigger an other emotion which can trigger an other thought and so on through a chain of cognitive associations. The obfuscated part of consciousness can through this kind of cognitive associations generate a world. And we are dissociated from this obfuscated part of consciousness which generates and determined the unfolding dynamics of the world and thus we can't generally control it at will through egoic volition. If you want answers to these sort of questions I suggest to check out writer Bernardo Kastrup. His consciousness/mind-only model of reality can make sense of many of these concerns we have if everything is just imagenary/mental.

Well the question I wanted an answer for was 'what do you mean by causalities in this context?' I don't see how you've answered that question. You said 'there is no whole without the sum total of its substance'. I don't see how that's an answer to the question. You don't have to answer. You do whatever you want of course, but insofar as you are willing to answer then it doesn't seem to me like you have answered the question.

Okay sure. I don't get your point. Are you gonna answer my questions as well?

I think the way that I think beacuse it's obvious that nothing can exist outside consciousness. But then in order to make sense of things, we seemingly have to infer something 'outside'our 'individually consciousness'. But to infer a whole universe outside consciousness seems inflationary, unessesary and like a unimaginable abstraction. So the inferance is one of phenomenal or mental 'stuff' instead, that realize the phenomenal appearance of the cosmos and to which the appearance of the universe as a whole corresponds. This can in a basic way explain that we seem to share the same context (the key world there being 'seem to'), and that world unfolds independently of egoic volition, and that there are strong correlations between brain states and subjective states. In case you want a more rigorous explanation I can do that to. But some of my assumptions is that we can explain the metaphysics and ontology of reality in a basic logical way to some non-trivial degree which at least partially reveals truth. And I'm also assuming that we need to infer soemthing beyond our 'individual consciousnesses' to make sense of and explain things. But I don't understand what you mean by causalities in this context. Can you please clarify? And then I'll happily answer. And I don't exactly know what you mean by 'linearly'. You mean like to logic-oriented or something? And sure there's no tree. But the appearances that constitute that which I'm calling a tree seems hard to deny.

Well if that was in response to me then I'm not sure you understood it the way that I meant it. I'm not quite saying that literally, beacuse even to say that we share the same reality is a materialist way of putting it. And I don't think the tree we both can see literally is the same tree. I'm saying that the phenomenal appearance of the tree you experience and I experience if we were seeing the so called 'same tree' is realized by the same underlying phenomenal or mental process. That's what I mean when I suggest that we are sharing the same reality. 'But the 'world' of phenomenal appearances that constitute our respective lives aren't the same. There is a non-trivial way in which we are then not sharing the same reality.

With regards to your question of why we agree about the nature of objects such as trees 'out there', or more generally put, why we seemingly share the same reality about which our experience to a significant extent converges such that it is consistent among observers, I would suggest the following considering, although with the caveat that the map is not the territory, language is limited so don't take this to literally, and also that I'm not someone who's had many deep awakenings so what I'm about to say isn't deeply grounded in direct experience. But what I'd suggest is that the shared context in which we are all embedded is more or less analogous to a shared dream, the contents of which such as trees are being self-generated in all the various dreams by the same collective psyche or mind generating the shared dream or imagined 'reality'. We might also think of this as kind of similar to the way we currently view the so called 'external world' but only that it is not a world outside and independent of consciousness made of non-conscious physical stuff, but rather a domain of consciousness, a stream of experiences or mental goings on which we might call the collective psyche self-generating our experience of a shared world with qualities and properties whose nature we all seem to basically agree on. So in some sense, what's out there is not the external physical world of objects, but a mental or phenomenal world of mentation by virtue of which we recognise a shared environment. Although 'out there' is a non-literal way of putting it, and that sort of phrasing is sort of materialistic terminology and a materialistic way of putting things. This might also help to understand why we can't change the world at will, because it is this trans-personal collective mind or consciousness that constitutes our world and thus also the manner in which it unfolds. If the trans-personal collective consciousness unfolds according to certain patterns and regularities and self-generates our seemingly collective world it isn't then a surprise that our seemingly collective world also unfolds according to certain patterns and regularities that we have come to call the laws of nature, which we also btw, might metaphorically view as the code or programming determining the rules and thus the way its metaphorically simulated world, self-generated by the trans-personal collective mind as the metaphorical programmer, unfolds independently of volition. Therefore we can't just walk through walls or turn blue whenever we want (at least for the most part). Further, mind or consciousness does not supervene on matter or the physical, meaning consciousness or mind does not come from matter or biology/the body-brain system. There is an undeniable relationship between consciousness/mind and body but not a causal relationship of the type that gives primacy to the physical and according to which the brain or biology generates consciousness. Biology and brains are images or appearances in consciousness which tend to correlate very strongly to subjective states. But correlation does not necessarily imply causation so to say. Rather biology is an image of a process of localisation of consciousness in a stream of consciousness, like a whirlpool is an image of a process of localisation of water in a stream of water. Does a whirlpool generate water? No! As such, for the same reason that a whirlpool doesn't generate water the body-brain system doesn't generate consciousness. Remember, these are just words, and words aren't the truth. Don't believe any of this stuff but with that said if you're interested in understanding a consciousness or mind-only view of reality better I'd recommend to check out Bernardo Kastrup, either on YouTube, or his blog 'Metaphysical speculations' or his books in which he deconstructs the mainstream materialist paradigm in which many of us are so deeply entrenched.

It wasn't originally, and I agree that the standards are and should be different, but then you talked about famale on male rape victims enjoying rape most likely, and also about victim blaming male rape victims, and then it did partly become about empathy for rape victims. That became a salient topic for obvious reasons. It baffles me that you are having a hard time undersatnding this. It would help if you set your minimisation and exuses aside and try to understand why we communicated what we did also.

I don't think anybody thought you did minimise male on male rape. But I don't think how much or little female on male rape happens is relevant to minimising the experience of those it does happen to regardless of the number. The ones it does happen to and has suffered beacuse of it deserve compassion, not minimisation. Reactions to minismising it seem to be to be an appropriate response of human decency. Call it SJW woke scolding and outrage if you want but to me it seems like human decency... but of course that is also a relative notion.

So true! Conservativism and progressiveivism are relative notions. Liberals and progressives from today will most likely look very Conservative from the perspective of future generations. And it's a fun thing to contemplate how future generations will look back at our generations. What will they see as conservative, wicked and crazy? Not just politically and socially, but metaphysically, philosophically, ethically and across the board. Agreed!

Agreed!

I'm a little shocked by Leo's perspective on this. Lost a lot of respect for him there. Presumebly it's on avarage not as bad for men to get raped by women as it is the other way around but that does not warrent minimising it or making a joke out of it like that. This is disgraceful! What happened to love, compassion and perspective taking? Is this really the take of a highly conscious person? Minimising rape?!! Really?! Fucking really?! Come on!!

I'd suggest checking out some of Bernardo Kastrup's work in case you aren't familiar with him already. He has many good books, many good interviews on YouTube, and a youtube channel deconstructing metaphysical/ontological physicalism/materialism.

Thanks for your reply. I see what you mean, but, as I see it, there are dangers with everything. There are traps in everything into which we can slip upon the slippery surface of the Earth. Ignoring what I feel is my calling/purpose, it seems to me would be one of those traps. I think we should all follow our hearts, and I think to many, although maybe not to all, their hearts reside in their passion and art.

Hi, I’m a 23 year old guy. I have some things I wanna ask and something I wanna share. While the title may suggest a dualistic polarity I am aware that these are synergistic. However, I do have a concern regarding a split focus on focusing between persuing my life pupose and a potentially conflicting focus on ’persuing’ awakening. I currently feel very inspired to persue my life purpose, as I feel that my passion and skill for my art is growing stonger over the years. Speaking of which, I want to say that while I have not followed through thoroughly on it, I have at least practised my art over the years, and I feel like sharing some of my experience with it thus far. Now, about three years after I took the course I’m fairly surprised with how much i’ve improved with my art. It makes me think, what’s possible in 10 or 20 years? And in case somebody is interested, here is a link to an article I recently wrote about philosophy, consciousness and reality which I’d consider the artform through which my high consciousness values and my relatively Teotlised heart can be communicated and shared. I’m actually quite proud of the article. http://www.integralworld.net/enbom1.html While I’m fairly determined to persue my life purpose now there is also a concern about sacrifising a more dedicated focus on awakening. It was recomended in the course to focus on life purpose before awakening in most cases, and to not focus on both of them simultaneously, and I feel right now that life purpose is more salient. However, I simultaneosly feel like I can’t ignore the spiritual path completely as my heart yearns for Love and for Truth. So I am a bit conflicted here, and not quite sure how to balance this. So any thoughts someone might have to share on this would be very much appreciated. There is also a concern on weather I should go to university to study philosophy or not. I’m seriously considering persuing a phd in philosophy, and while that is probably gonna help me master my field, and be benifiitial in other ways there is also an uncertainty of weather this is gonna be a waste of time, and just generally gonna do more harm than good. Any thoughts on this by someone would also be very welcomed.

Well I think perceiver and perceived are seen as seperate as a result of intellectualisation. It's a conceptual abstraction. seen through in some deep meditative state, yes sure, but if aware of the false distiction it can become apparent as soon as one just is mindful of paying attention to it, and voila, the distinction is seen through. "If there is no light there won't be darkness!." Yes, indeed. Amen to that! The dialectical polar monism represented partially in the yin yang symbol for example.

Glad you liked it. i'd like to ask you, how do you mean when you say that it appears to be outside or separate? And I'll take a look, altough QF is for the most part kind of outside my domain of understanding as of yet. But it is on the list of things to learn on that Life long Learning thing.

Well sure, there are all kinds of dualities, but they are self-dual and collapse in in an absolute perspective. The percieved and the perciever are one. I'm suggesting that what is being percieved is not a mind-external environment, but rather a mental environment, numerically identical to the perciever of it.

The phenomenal experience of feeling and hearing the wall are themselves perceptions. Merely closing one's eyes doesn't actually eliminate all perception, considering that we have 5 senses. So that doesn't really contradict the proposition. I'd suggest that if you're not experiencing the wall through any of the 5 senses then it does not exist as a wall with colors and certain ways it feels. Our sense experience is a representation of the so called 'external universe', but the external universe does not itself have those human-associated experintial qualities and textures such as sounds,colors and so on. That is a representation. It is a representation of trans-personal mental states. In other words, there is the noumena (the thing itself), but the noumena is itself phenomenal/mental, but while phenomenal/mental, not of the qualities in terms of which we experience the world.

What i mean by consciousness is what in philosophy of mind is called phenomenal consciousness, roughly defines as 'an entity is conscious if and only if it is anything it is like to be that entity, some subjective way it feels like or appears for the entity. Alternatively, (and this gets at the same thing i'm trying to Point to) consciousness is 'that which experiences'. Regarding what I take to be a panphsycist view: While I Think that's better than materialism, it still is infering something that is not mental or something that is not mind/consciouness. Why is this necessary? In a dream at night you don't say that objects of the Dream world are themselves conscious, so why would we say that in the waking state? It seems unessesary? We might say that the inanimate universe as a whole corresponds to mental goings on, but not that the atoms on the screen of perception of which the appearance of the inanimate universe is comprised are themselves conscious/minded (assuming that this is what you're suggesting). If we can make sense of our shared basic and not so basic observations of reality in terms of only one thing (mind), then why postulate a second (matter outside mind of which its constituent parts supposedly are conscious? By way of analogy: When looking at the horizen you don't say that there is a shadow Earth beyond it, but rather just more Earth. In a similar way, why say that beyond our minds is a whole different type of thing (matter outside mind)? It seems unessesary. Here is a video of an articulation of a mind-only view of reality in case it is of interest.

Thanks for the reply. I found it helpful and it resonated well.

The key to understanding the walking through walls thing lies in the distinction made in philosophy between the phenomena and the noumena. Meaning the distinction between our experiences of reality and reality itself, or the things in reality themselves. According to materialism reality itself is unconscious matter outside mind. But in a mind-only frameworks the noumena is only mental goings on, from which our personal consciousness that we identify with is dissociated. This explain why we can't walk through walls or do other such things that the world does not comply with. And the thing about particles. In a mind-only framework particles are just what the noumena as trans-personal mind look like and presents itself on the screen of perception. Somewhat analogous to pixels on a screen. And as has already been pointed out by others but I'll put a little differently: there's no evidence for a materilist reality of matter outside consciousness. That is a theoretical abstraction, a concept in mind/consciousness. It's a theoretical inferance, not itself an observation.

This Point about Walking through walls can totally be made sense of within a mind-only framework. The key to understanding this lies in the distinction made in philosophy between the phenomena and the noumena.

This clip also highlights the dogmatic false skepticism of the stage orange materialist paradigm pretty well.