r0ckyreed

I am planning my first solo vacation. I am going to California and doing a road trip in June. I am going to Lake Tahoe - San Francisco - Big Sur - Yosemite. My intention for this trip is meditation/contemplation and adventure. I plan to spend a lot of time contemplating while driving, at the beach, and on a trail. If I have any insights or anything worth sharing, I will post it. Anybody have any suggestions on things to see?

Very insightful trip. Never knew cough medicine could be a psychedelic. I will stick to more reliable substances for now (aka shrooms, LSD, etc.).

While y’all are arguing about Ralston, I’m sitting on my couch contemplating reality, self, and mind. Ralston seems like a good guy, but Ralston cannot awaken you. Idolatry is a distraction. Every person on the planet carries truth and falsehood in their worldview. Everyone. Including myself. I’ve been wrong about many things I thought I was right about. Nobody is above me nor you. Is Love just an animal emotion? No. You aren’t getting it because for an animal to have any emotion whatsoever requires Love to make that happen. Love is Connection, Unity, Oneness that contains within itself division and separation. But you couldn’t have division/separation without Unity in the first place. Love isn’t the same thing as happy bliss. Love also includes evil. Love is a tick on your nuts.

Does Non-Existence exist? Does Nothingness really exist? If Existence/Consciousness is the foundation of reality, then what is Nothingness or Non-Existence? We cannot talk about non-existence or Nothingness without first discussing what Existence is. What I mean by existence is everything that you experience within your consciousness. If you cannot see it, hear it, smell it, feel it, taste it, or think it, it does not exist. I would say that Nothingness and Non-existence are different. Non-Existence points to something that no longer exists or has never existed and Nothingness points to something that exists but has either no attributes or infinite attributes -- Think of a blank canvas or the emptiness of space. With non-existence, there is not even blankness or emptiness of space. Space = Nothingness and Space = Non-existent are two different ideas. Here are some examples of Non-Existence: 1. Being a virgin (sex is non-existent for you, you have had 0 sex) 2. Your dead great-great-grandparents (they are literally physically non-existent) 3. A Purple Elephant native to Earth (maybe there is one on a different planet but none native to earth). 4. Santa Clause (Santa is an idea in your mind that points to something that does not actually exist) 5. Bertrand Russell's Celestial Teapot 6. A memory/dream that you forgotten 7. Your childhood/youth (your health/vitality will one day be non-existent) 8. Death (this is a tricky one depending on how you look at it. Death can be seen as Non-existent or as Nothingness.) Here are some examples of Nothingness: 1. Empty Consciousness (no thought, no mind) 2. Ego (The ego's reality is nothingness, it is made out of thought made out of nothing, it's not made out of anything) 3. Thought (its not made out of anything) 4. The empty space that holds all objects in existence 5. The substance of anything is made out of Nothingness. Even science tells us that objects are made out of emptiness. 6. State of Consciousness during sleep and during pre-birth. 6. Death (this is a tricky one depending on how you look at it. Death can be seen as Non-existent or as Nothingness.) What are your thoughts? Does Nothingness and Non-existence exist? When we say Consciousness or Existence is the foundation of reality, do we mean that the foundation of Infinity/Existence is Nothingness? How does Existence relate to Non-Existence?

Tell me, what’s so profound about Moby’s Dick? Give me your best argument.

Great share!

Yes, good.

Yeah. But I mean just me shooting a gun without all that culture nonsense. Me going to the gun range to shoot my Glock is not out of conformity, but I see other shooters with all their gear and stuff and getting gung-ho about it. Using a fork to eat food could be considered conformity or even the way you hold it. I remember as a kid, I got in trouble for using my hands instead of a fork, so I conformed. I also remember my parents trying to get me to hold the fork "the right way". To this stay, I still eat with a fork the way I want to. Some cultures eat with their hands or chopsticks. But the act of me holding a fork or using a fork I would say is not conformity unless you are doing it because others told you. This is getting very tricky!!

Yes. I got that. But there appears to be non-existent things such as Santa and Death. These are existent ideas that point to things that do not exist. The reality of Santa and Death is non-existent. If Santa and Death are not non-existent, then what reality do they have?

List of things that aren’t conformity: 1. Breathing 2. Contemplation 3. Drinking water 4. Walking through the forest 5. Cancer 6. Death 7. Truth 8. Consciousness 9. Shooting a gun 10. Genuine Kindness

There are conformist and nonconformist reasons for that.

Lines at Starbucks and Dutch Bros is conformity for most part. Why do you need coffee at all? If so, why can’t you make it at home? I see a line full of cars and think to myself: You wouldn’t have to wait in line if you just bothered to spend 5 minutes making it a home. Conformity. Another is the expectation for men to pay for the first date or to make the first move or “be a provider.”

Cool to see how my thoughts a year ago seemed to dovetail pretty nicely with the Deconstructing Rationality series.

I would define meta-rationality as thinking about the limits and strength of rationality. Post-rationality, I would define, are features of consciousness outside of rationality. In other words, there are certain limits in rationality/logic and there may be levels of thinking beyond rationality. But what is rationality really? Rationality is using reasoning and logic to arrive at certain conclusions. It uses chains of reasoning, consistent structured, critical thinking to arrive at certain conclusions based off of the validity of the premises/evidence. I would say that rationality is a higher form of thinking than strict empiricism or observation. Empiricism/observation/experience is the foundation of all knowledge. Without observation, there could be no knowing and no rationality. Rationality is dependent on what we observe. But knowledge does not strictly stop at observation. Rationalism is the view of knowledge that suggests that we can derive knowledge from rationality. We can use mathematics and logic to figure out truths that we may not be able to get a direct experience at. For instance, the fact that humans knew that they had to invent space suits to go to the moon. They had no direct experience of this, but they arrived at the conclusion based off of reasoning. Rationality has its strengths, but there are limits. Post-rationality suggests that rationality is one perspective out of many. One of the main objections is that rationality is based off of certain assumptions that were not itself rationally justified. Rationality discounts that logic, reasoning, and evidence are highly subjective and contentious. Context plays a lot in rationality, and rationality may not be flexible enough to understand deeper implicit and intuitive facets of understanding and reality. Understanding itself is a highly intuitive process. Rationality also faces the issue of how to discern and differentiate the differences between what is rational vs. irrational. Everyone thinks they are rational, so who is right? Whose method of rationality is actually rational and how do we decide what is more rational than another? Is there one way to be rational or many? Also, how do we know that rationality is a valid method for deriving knowledge without self-justifying it with rationality? Rationality may not be able to handle self-reference, which entails contradictions and paradoxes. But the Universe is full of contradictions and paradoxes. Contradictions may be a feature of reality and not some fallacy as rationalists might suggest. Of course, we are not going to abandon rationality. We are going to take the good parts of rationality and incorporate them in post-rationality. Post-rationality will encompass intuition. But you see the issue right now is that I am using rationality right now to discuss the limits of rationality! Even to argue with me about rationality is you also using rationality. We really cannot escape rationality, but the most rational form of rationality I would call post-rationality or meta-rationality, which incorporates rationality with what normie rationality misses. Rationality without encompassing intuition and without self-observing its own biases in terms of its limits is itself an irrational system! Of course, I am using rationality to make this post and you will respond with rational reasons for why rationality is irrational. But this is the standstill we are at. In some ways, we can go beyond rationality, but we could never explain those means without using rationality because rationality is the means to which our minds are able to make the implicit explicit.

Regarding Leo’s IQ test. While that goes deeper than math tests, I would say true intelligence is beyond survival. The highest intelligence isn’t about how well you can survive, it’s about understanding God. A moronic person could pass the rope and chair test but they wouldn’t realize God; therefore, they miss the highest intelligence. You can handle a wild beast and still be deluded. I would say my IQ test would be to lock you in a dark room by yourself until you can answer the question: What Is Truth? Each time you give some dogma or Buddhist, spiritual nonsense, I would give you a shock to the nuts. The door won’t open until you answer and experience directly What Is Truth?

Taylor Swift Fate of Ophelia Choreography.

I told my grandpa that him setting up an American Flag for July 4th was conformity. But he told me it wasn’t because he genuinely likes putting out his flag on July 4th and other national holidays. The same is with Christmas. What do you say to that? I told my neighbor that lawn maintenance and green fertilizer is conformity. But he told me it isn’t because “I like the way my lawn looks.” It is hard to tell what is genuine conformity or not because people could always have a nonconformist justification of their behavior. A person going to a football game will never admit it’s because of conformity but because they love watching Mahomes and Kelce. Art is conformity in the sense of copying nature and other artists. A true artist is nonconformity and adds their original idea and interpretation.

People pay for construction not deconstruction. People pay for illusion and not disillusion. Entertainment, academia, health, sports, teaching, etc. is monetized because of illusion. Maya in action. Clever girl.

New Year’s Resolutions. You should be setting goals regardless of what day it is. Of course, there is a non-conformist way to go about setting a New Year’s Resolution. But it’s all hyped up conformity with people going to the gym and then quitting. Shows you it was conformity in the first place, not a true goal or “resolution.” If it was a genuine goal, you wouldn’t quit 3 weeks in.

@Leo Gura How would you define death? If a living organism becomes a mere object, I would define that as death. What makes us different from rocks is that we are consciousness, whereas a rock is mere object with no subjectivity. The rock is made out of consciousness but is not conscious itself. Death is the consciousness of “others” no longer being localized/fixated at the body. What more evidence do we need that Charlie Kirk is dead? We got camera footage, a coffin with his body, statements from doctors and his wife. Of course, this is all in my memory/imagination now. I could spend the rest of my life on a wild goose chase trying to look for Charlie alive, but I will only find him decomposing 6ft under.

@Leo Gura I don’t get your quote #339 about science being slop for believing in death. Science doesn’t “prove” things but rather uses repeatable, observable methods to demonstrate something. A scientist doesn’t have to prove death to anyone. They just need to use the proper measures for investigating death. (Of course, you’ve deconstructed that scientists in practice don’t behave in the manner illustrated by the definition of science.) The history of science has changed its definition of death. A scientific definition of death is the cessation of all biological functioning required for life. Ex. Brain death, circulation, heart failure, etc. I would say death isn’t a belief. We experience small forms of death throughout our lives. Ex. Loss of job, partner, and eventually our life. Consciousness is eternal, but Charlie Kirk getting shot is a permanent reality where we will live the rest of our existence without him in it. That is death, and yes it’s imaginary but so is a kick to the balls.

@Leo Gura I think he’s saying that it contradicts with the external world being imaginary. If the color red exists outside of my consciousness, then that would be an example of an external world. But at the same time awakening is outside of most people’s consciousness but yet it exists. Color is a content within consciousness, so its subject to change. Hope this makes sense because science would say color is byproduct photons interacting with the brain. If there was damage to occipital lobe or retina, you won’t be able to see color. So does color exist but I have no access to it or have I created a universe without color? That’s the contradiction.

Interesting point. If you are colorblind, then God would be imagining a reality without color. Does color still exist if you cannot experience it? You would only have your idea of what it would be based off your limits of consciousness.

Ah, very nice insight. It reminds me of a book I read from your booklist where a disciple realizes that Self cannot die and is not the body, prana, or mind because those are all changing. Pure Consciousness is Unchanging which is another way of saying it cannot die, as it is that which witnesses and imagines everything in existence. Consciousness couldn’t be changing because then it couldn’t witness change because it would be changing with everything else. I realized on a trip that death and birth, dreaming and waking is something Consciousness is constructing. That which is constructed will never be “infinite enough” to overtake the Infinite. There is nothing outside of Infinity to kill it and Infinity would have nowhere to go since it is already all that is. Brilliant Quote!

@Wilhelm44 No. Read his recent blog post on the topic. @Leo Gura On your quote about consciousness does not age and the color red exists forever: how do you explain that some people cannot see colors or may become blind? I can’t help but anticipate a materialist to come up with objections like this. Our senses change over time and Consciousness doesn’t “age” but I would argue that it can mature since it is capable of growth and change.