r0ckyreed

Which side would you take? Would you support sacrificing individual freedoms for the benefit of greater good or would you value freedoms at the cost of greater good? Team Cap or Team Iron man?

I never said the two are mutually exclusive. If there is an either in an or statement then it would be exclusive. But if it is just an or in an or statement, then the answer could be both. But again, if you say both, where do you cherry pick. For example, would you favor governmental control over drugs? For me, no. would you favor governmental involvement over corporations? For me, yes. How did I draw this line? It is based on my belief that people should have freedom to do drugs but people should also be in check to not corporatize and pollute the environment etc. the question is, where do we draw the line between personal freedoms and protection? i do not favor government to have security cameras in bathrooms, but I do favor the government to overwatch terrorism and crime. See how it is paradoxical? Do you all have this similar problem as well? I think I will go for Team Cap because the government cannot be trusted to make all the right choices for its citizens but at the same time, we cannot leave matters in individuals hands because of manipulation. Do you see my problem?

Which Avenger is the most evolved and has the highest evolved moral compass and virtues in alignment to higher consciousness? I think Captain America might be the best but I am still unsure.i think that Cap is stage Green on the spiral. What do you think?

The problem is where do you draw the line in your circle for balance? Notice how the line in yin yang is drawn. How do you draw your own line between freedom and greater good?

I think that the next step for actualized.org is to apply all the lessons and virtues into a discussion about morality. I notice that actualized.org is very metaphysically/epistemically based. Although, I think metaphysics is the highest discussed content on actualized.org with only a couple videos that I know of on morality: 1. Why good and evil don’t exist and 2. Conscious politics. I think that the next step will be to take all of the insights that Leo has developed and go full-circle and bringing it back to discipline and how to apply the insights into life. I think actualized.org could focus on morality in particular virtue ethics or deontology as I think that there is a lot of confusion about what is “moral” these days. Just because morality is relative is imaginary does not mean we should avoid the topic. I think that if actualized.org goes back full circle to tie it back into Value Theory: what is the Good Life and how to live it and Virtue Ethics or Deontology, how to live to moral life, then I think it would be a very interesting step to attract more viewers. Many people who watch your content will not achieve these high states and probably don’t know what you are talking about. It may seem abstract for them. But tying it back into morality/discipline and ways to practically live life purpose then I think it would be a very progressive move for actualized.org because it will empower more and more people to live virtuously and morally high quality lives. Anyways this is what I see that could be changed.

After further contemplation, I came up with the conclusion that Berkeley had it backwards. Instead of to exist is to be perceived, I can up with the conclusion that to be perceived is to exist. in my contemplation, I made my room completely dark, I calmed my mind down, then I spun around to disorient myself and pick up a random object. With my eyes closed, I noticed that my mind immediately tried to conjure a visible image of the object, but I realize that I only have a visual thought of the object because it had been perceived before. I tried to ground myself in actuality and noticed that existence is subjective. A person born blind never experienced a visual reality. Therefore, a visual reality does not exist for him. I noticed that I do not actually perceive a visual image of the object I am holding (with eyes closed) I only feel the object. Without feeling or any other sensations, the object cannot be known to exist. my problem with Berkeleys Esse est percipi is that it seems to me that objects that are NOT perceived can still affect me. I challenged this by reasoning that since I can perceive being affected, the affect and object exist, but this also had problems. One problem is being killed instantly by a car bomb. I didn’t perceive a bomb so it doesn’t exist (at least subjectively?). this is why my conclusion to perceive means to exist. This means that perception is a facet of existence. I can only know what I can perceive through the senses, but there is more to reality than what my senses tell me. Therefore, To perceive is to exist what does reality look like without being filtered through senses? Is there an absolute way for reality to look? what do you all think?

I have been contemplating what existence is and remember reading Bishop Berkeley’s philosophy on idealism. His basic philosophy is that what existence means is that something is perceived. Without an object being perceived, how can it exist? my inquiry goes like this: What is the universe without life? Isn’t the point of creating life is so that the Universe can experience and become aware of itself? If there were no subjects in existence, then how could anything be known to exist? Before I was born, was there any sense of a Big Bang or a planet with human history and life? I find that the idea of the Holocaust, Big Bang, planet Earth all hinges upon subjectivity or life to exist. But more than that, it hinges on my perceptions and the idea of me to exist right? If I did not exist, what would the Universe be like? Would it exist at all? The world I am looking out at now seems like it is my own private universe that is limited by the perceptions of being human. If I was to compare an alien with a different brain, a human being, a bat, and an ant, all of there Universes seem to be vastly different. So does an object depend on me to exist? Is the Universe depended on the mind or independent. If it is independent, then what could we say exists? Can we say that the sun existed before us? Well it seems to me that we define the sun based off of our human perceptions of the sun. If the sun existed before I was born, could I assume that it would be just like how I perceive it now before I was born? In the same way, what is anything without a perceived? Can I assume that what I perceive now is exactly how the world is before I was born? I don’t think so because my perceptions are just a piece of the puzzle. It seems to me that my existence is like a piece to the puzzle, but yet, it also seems like the complete puzzle at the same time. The only thing I know is that which is based in my perception right? I mean I cannot know what the experience of a bat is like no matter how much I think about it. I can only know what’s in my direct experience. Other perspectives are what I am imagining based on my experiences. In fact, isn’t imagination and rationality dependent on the senses? If I cannot experience the world, how can I imagine it and rationalize it? So. This is my inquiry. It is probably full of shit, but I think Berkeley maybe on to something about Esse est percipi. It seems like the Big Bang never existed because it was not perceived. Though, I do struggle with the problem that there are many things that I do NOT perceive that seem to exist. For example, I could get sniper or hit by a car without perceiving it. Does the car or murderer exist? This is my problem with Esse est percipi, but it also seems that the world I perceive is the only world that exists at least to my perspective. It also seems that there is more to reality than what I perceive, but any notion of a different perception is something I am imagining right now? What do you all think? I am also pretty new to this work. I would love to hear your suggestions and perspectives.

My dad showed me this article below after watching Leo’s new video on Learning = Distinction. When political debates arise, it is important to ask, what does it mean to be liberal? What do our policies mean? What do people mean by being liberal? Why is there so much debate? I am quite new to studying politics. I look forward to hearing liberal thought and conservative thought on this article below: “I'm a liberal, but that doesn't mean what a lot of you apparently think it does. Let's break it down, shall we? Because quite frankly, I'm getting a little tired of being told what I believe and what I stand for. Spoiler alert: not every liberal is the same, though the majority of liberals I know think along roughly these same lines: 1. I believe a country should take care of its weakest members. A country cannot call itself civilized when its children, disabled, sick, and elderly are neglected. PERIOD. 2. I believe healthcare is a right, not a privilege. Somehow that's interpreted as "I believe Obamacare is the end-all, be-all." This is not the case. I'm fully aware that the ACA has problems, that a national healthcare system would require everyone to chip in, and that it's impossible to create one that is devoid of flaws, but I have yet to hear an argument against it that makes "let people die because they can't afford healthcare" a better alternative. I believe healthcare should be far cheaper than it is, and that everyone should have access to it. And no, I'm not opposed to paying higher taxes in the name of making that happen. 3. I believe education should be affordable. It doesn't necessarily have to be free (though it works in other countries so I'm mystified as to why it can't work in the US), but at the end of the day, there is no excuse for students graduating college saddled with five- or six-figure debt. 4. I don't believe your money should be taken from you and given to people who don't want to work. I have literally never encountered anyone who believes this. Ever. I just have a massive moral problem with a society where a handful of people can possess the majority of the wealth while there are people literally starving to death, freezing to death, or dying because they can't afford to go to the doctor. Fair wages, lower housing costs, universal healthcare, affordable education, and the wealthy actually paying their share would go a long way toward alleviating this. Somehow believing that makes me a communist. 5. I don't throw around "I'm willing to pay higher taxes" lightly. If I'm suggesting something that involves paying more, well, it's because I'm fine with paying my share as long as it's actually going to something besides lining corporate pockets or bombing other countries while Americans die without healthcare. 6. I believe companies should be required to pay their employees a decent, livable wage. Somehow this is always interpreted as me wanting burger flippers to be able to afford a penthouse apartment and a Mercedes. What it actually means is that no one should have to work three full-time jobs just to keep their head above water. Restaurant servers should not have to rely on tips, multibillion-dollar companies should not have employees on food stamps, workers shouldn't have to work themselves into the ground just to barely make ends meet, and minimum wage should be enough for someone to work 40 hours and live. 7. I am not anti-Christian. I have no desire to stop Christians from being Christians, to close churches, to ban the Bible, to forbid prayer in school, etc. (BTW, prayer in school is NOT illegal; *compulsory* prayer in school is - and should be - illegal). All I ask is that Christians recognize *my* right to live according to *my* beliefs. When I get pissed off that a politician is trying to legislate Scripture into law, I'm not "offended by Christianity" -- I'm offended that you're trying to force me to live by your religion's rules. You know how you get really upset at the thought of Muslims imposing Sharia law on you? That's how I feel about Christians trying to impose biblical law on me. Be a Christian. Do your thing. Just don't force it on me or mine. 8. I don't believe LGBT people should have more rights than you. I just believe they should have the *same* rights as you. 9. I don't believe illegal immigrants should come to America and have the world at their feet, especially since THIS ISN'T WHAT THEY DO (spoiler: undocumented immigrants are ineligible for all those programs they're supposed to be abusing, and if they're "stealing" your job it's because your employer is hiring illegally). I believe there are far more humane ways to handle undocumented immigration than our current practices (i.e., detaining children, splitting up families, ending DACA, etc). 10. I don't believe the government should regulate everything, but since greed is such a driving force in our country, we NEED regulations to prevent cut corners, environmental destruction, tainted food/water, unsafe materials in consumable goods or medical equipment, etc. It's not that I want the government's hands in everything -- I just don't trust people trying to make money to ensure that their products/practices/etc. are actually SAFE. Is the government devoid of shadiness? Of course not. But with those regulations in place, consumers have recourse if they're harmed and companies are liable for medical bills, environmental cleanup, etc. Just kind of seems like common sense when the alternative to government regulation is letting companies bring their bottom line into the equation. 11. I believe our current administration is fascist. Not because I dislike them or because I can’t get over an election, but because I've spent too many years reading and learning about the Third Reich to miss the similarities. Not because any administration I dislike must be Nazis, but because things are actually mirroring authoritarian and fascist regimes of the past. 12. I believe the systemic racism and misogyny in our society is much worse than many people think, and desperately needs to be addressed. Which means those with privilege -- white, straight, male, economic, etc. -- need to start listening, even if you don't like what you're hearing, so we can start dismantling everything that's causing people to be marginalized. 13. I am not interested in coming after your blessed guns, nor is anyone serving in government. What I am interested in is the enforcement of present laws and enacting new, common sense gun regulations. Got another opinion? Put it on your page, not mine. 14. I believe in so-called political correctness. I prefer to think it’s social politeness. If I call you Chuck and you say you prefer to be called Charles I’ll call you Charles. It’s the polite thing to do. Not because everyone is a delicate snowflake, but because as Maya Angelou put it, when we know better, we do better. When someone tells you that a term or phrase is more accurate/less hurtful than the one you're using, you now know better. So why not do better? How does it hurt you to NOT hurt another person? 15. I believe in funding sustainable energy, including offering education to people currently working in coal or oil so they can change jobs. There are too many sustainable options available for us to continue with coal and oil. Sorry, billionaires. Maybe try investing in something else. 16. I believe that women should not be treated as a separate class of human. They should be paid the same as men who do the same work, should have the same rights as men and should be free from abuse. Why on earth shouldn’t they be? I think that about covers it. Bottom line is that I'm a liberal because I think we should take care of each other. That doesn't mean you should work 80 hours a week so your lazy neighbor can get all your money. It just means I don't believe there is any scenario in which preventable suffering is an acceptable outcome as long as money is saved.” https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/ron-howard-i-am-liberal-essay/

this is an open-ended question as to whether the Coronavirus is as lethal as the media and government portray it to be or are the media and government trying to control us, lock away our freedoms, and make our immune systems more vulnerable? After watching Ralph Smart’s (Infinite Waters) video about the Coronavirus, he states that several doctors came out saying that the government is controlling us through our fears. Why are healthy people being quarantined? Isn’t it true that by being our others, we strengthen our immune systems? Are all deaths related to coronavirus caused by coronavirus? What is really going on? Was the coronavirus created by the Chinese to attack Americans or some other country? What is really going on here? Many people are afraid but yet, there is no panic for the flu, then why is there so much panic around covid? Out of millions that get it, only a thousand die. What are your thoughts? Please be open minded and consider my questions seriously. Do not cling to your ideology. Is the coronavirus lethal or is it a measure for control or both? If you say both, please be precise on here you draw your distinctions. thank you! Stay safe? <3

https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/out-the-darkness/201404/do-psychic-phenomena-exist-0 So I have read the Holographic Universe by Michael Talbot and have read Tragic Spirits by Buyandelger (which is about shamans) and was wondering how to channel spirits like shamans do? I think Leo might have mentioned that he had something about how to Channel spirits but I cannot find the content anywhere? I would really like to become a psychic or medium to help heal people in the spiritual realm. I plan to go to graduate school this Fall to start my Master's program to become a Mental Health counselor. I am really serious about this ability because I want a diverse background and knowledge of how to heal other people both physically, psychologically, and spiritually. Please let me know how I can empower myself to heal others through connecting with celestial origin spirits. Thank you!

Thank you all! @Leo Gura I remember when I was younger that I would have dreams of certain events that would take place in reality and I have experienced moments of synchronicity. But recently, I have noticed that I have been more intuitive in that I can sense almost predict seeing an old teacher or friend. I could be just coincidence, but it has happened a couple times where a thought would appear in my mind about an old history teacher, then I would see him at my work at Hideaway Pizza (when I have never seen him there before). This certain moment made me kinda curious about certain possibilities. But I don’t know. I am interested in pursuing training in this work to better know thyself and heal others. What do you recommend?

So I am not blind (at least I don't think I am ), but I have been thinking about this issue in pursuing Consciousness. If one has lost their sight, hearing, feeling, or all sensations, how does one pursue Consciousness? I guess that no matter what sensations you lose in life, you will still have consciousness, awareness, and thoughts. So what I am trying to figure out is if I am blind, it is as if the Visual World ceases to exist. Do the loss of sensations prevent or inhibit one from becoming enlightened? How do psychedelic trips affect blind and deaf people? Are there any limits to Consciousness if one loses their sensations? What does it even mean to say that you are Consciousness when you are not and cannot be aware of any sensations or anything in the world? I understand from distinguishing Actuality from Concept that if I am blind then my Visual World (with colors, shape, objects) ceases to exist for me. But if the Visual World ceases to exist when you are blind, then why is it that you can still be harmed in it? Think of the 3rd movie of The Matrix: The Matrix Revolutions when Neo become "blind." Let's assume that he was actually blind. If there is no external world, how can Agent Smith have a chance of killing him? I am still trying to wrap my mind around this. Here is me trying to understand. Please point out my flaws in trying to distinguish actuality from concept: I realize that this experience of typing on a computer is ACTUAL and the External World that I believe is outside my room and house is IMAGINARY. What is IMAGINARY can affect what is ACTUAL (such as a nuclear bomb hitting my house, which is also IMAGINARY). Since Consciousness divides itself, Neo is blind (a part of consciousness) and Agent Smith can see (also a part of consciousness). All that is going on with Agent Smith harming Neo when Neo is blind is Consciousness interacting with Consciousness. But from Neo's perspective, Agent Smith is a figment of his imagination, yet this imagination of Smith is a reality that Neo has to deal with. Neo is imagining the visual image of Smith, but when Smith talks, Neo hears the ACTUALITY of his voice. Sound arises out of Nothingness and passes away in Nothingness in the same way that Neo's sight and existence came from Nothingness and in the end when he died, Consciousness merged back into Nothingness. Since Consciousness is infinite, it can infinitely divide itself giving it the appearance of an external world. But I notice that there really is no Neo and is no Agent Smith. These are just fictional characters and identities appearing in Consciousness. I am IMAGINING IT! In the same way that Consciousness imagines that it is a human being, it imagines that it is blind and that it is fighting Agent Smith. It is almost seems like the Life is one gigantic Dream or Video Game in which Consciousness (the content and structure of the dream) is imagining and interacting with other consciousnesses that are just divisions of itself interacting with itself? LMAO!! I feel like I am crazy and I may be crazy. But keep in mind though that Delusion and Crazy may be the default levels of everybody. It is unraveling this delusion and fantasy that leads one to Truth. But if our society is built on bullshit, lies, and delusion, then what is the Truth will be seen as delusion, bullshit, and lies from a delusional point of view?

Here are some videos that I think will introduce people to Consciousness work. Feel free to add some videos on here that you find helpful for others to see!

Yeah your right! I probably have a lot of misinformation about them. My culture has really made me skeptical and fearful of them for what they can do to my brain. Do you have any information on psychedelics that could set me down the path to discover them for what they are? From your research, are there long-term damages to the brain? I am most nervous about the negative impacts of psychedelics of me screwing it up. I think I stay away from them for good reason LoL!! I realize now that this Spiritual Journey is all about interpreting reality LITERALLY!!

Hello guys, I am relatively new to all this enlightenment stuff. I have been meditating consistently for a couple years, and I have been using Sam Harris' Waking Up App. So far, I have read The Book of Not Knowing by Peter Ralston, and Spiritual Enlightenment The Damnedest Thing by Jed McKenna. As a result, I have been meditating everyday for at least 20 minutes just following my breath and noticing other sensations and thoughts arising and passing in consciousness. I also am contemplating and trying to dispell and eliminate all my beliefs and programming such as Spiritual Autolysis like Jed mentioned in his book. I just want to be sure I am doing the practice correctly. All I am doing is uncovering an unchallenged belief and challenging it. Such examples for challenging such beliefs are: The belief that I am a real character or that I am a character at all The belief that I am not in the Matrix The belief that reality is real The belief that I am not deluded (which I am) The belief that I even exist (proving Cogito Ergo Sum to myself) The belief that I am a good person The belief that there is an external world The belief that other people have minds The belief that knowledge can be derived from sensations and rationality The belief that my family is real The belief that my culture is correct the Belief that I am well-educated The belief that my thoughts are my own or that I am the author of my thoughts Belief that there is an observer to what is being observed etc. etc. etc., I am just wondering whether I am doing Spiritual Autolysis correctly and whether meditating and contemplating alone will eventually let me have a direct experience of God? Like Jed McKenna said, "Sit down. Shut up. Find out what is true." Jed McKenna also mentions in his book to ask yourself, "What can you know for certain?" The only thing you can know is that you exist. This is known as Solipsism and Descartes had a similar insight in Cogito Ergo Sum (around p. 79). The part I have trouble with is that contemplation is using the mind to understand reality right? But how can thinking lead to a direct experience of God? What particular exercises do you all find most helpful in having the direct experience/implicit understanding of God, Nothingness, Void, etc.? How do contemplation and meditation fit together if at all? Is using contemplation techniques such Spiritual Autolysis, Descartes Cogito Ergo Sum, Peter Ralston's emptying your cup exercise, etc. going to lead me down the round to experiencing God? I know this is a lot! I Thank you! I appreciate all of your help!

Wow I am dumb. I discovered that Leo literally has outlined step by step contemplation exercises for enlightenment on the forums.

I have just watched Leo's video on What is Actuality- Direct Experience vs. Concept. This seems like a really interesting exercise to do. So if all thoughts are concepts, then isn't contemplating and questioning reality a concept as well? Isn't Self-inquiry a concept as well? Can you grasp the truth and have an experience of God based on the conceptual nature of contemplation and Self-inquiry? After thinking about it, it may be that if you drive concepts toward actuality then concepts may be helpful? For instance, contemplation, even though it is conceptual, contemplation is a tool and can guide one's awareness deeper into actuality such as questioning my assumptions about my hand being a human hand, molecules, or whatever else I believe. What do you all think about pursuing this exercise? What did you find in your experience?

Thanks for all of your responses! I love actualized.org! @Meta-Man how long do you recommend just sitting?

@Inliytened1 @Leo Gura Thanks for your responses! As for your question about being an Entity behind eyes, I do not see one. What is an entity? What are eyes? What is seeing? Is there really something seeing out of eyes? In my experience I do not see eyes or see what is seeing through what I think are eyes. In fact, I do not even see a head. Where my head should be, all I see is the world. I have a sense of being an entity, but I realize that this entity is content within consciousness. When I tried to look for this entity or the feeling that there is a meditator, I could not find one. In my experience, I tried to look for myself behind my eyes, but nothing was all that is there. When I asked “What am I,” in self-inquiry, I notice that that this entity (which cannot be found is identified with these thoughts and emotions). After examining closely and pondering “what will my next thought be?” My mind was so still until I sensed it wondering and it is creepy lol! But what sensed the mind wondering and what thinks its creepy?? It feels like empty awareness behind my eyes that identifies with being a subject within “human experience.” Am I doing this correctly? Thanks for all of your help!

@Meta-Man Thanks for your response! I would much rather prefer a path that did not involve psychedelics partly because I do not know the long-term effects it will have on my brain, cognition, neural connections, function, etc., I do not know how to get them, and it is illegal in my state (Oklahoma). At this moment, I would rather elevate my consciousness "naturally." I may try them in the future. Hopefully they will be accessible in the future. Did I describe the right process for Spiritual Autolysis correctly? I mean, is it really that simple such as to just "Sit down. Shut up. Ask yourself what is true until you know?" I sincerely appreciate your help on my journey!

I have been contemplating the nature of existence and the external world. I have been questioning the perspectives of idealism- only mind exists, external world does not, and realism- external world exists. I have watched many of Leo's videos regarding these issues, but I thought I would try to verify and experience the truth rather than just believing him. Here is an example of my current inquiry: What is existence? What does it mean to say something exists? Does it mean that an object or world is appearing within consciousness or is the object or world "there?" What does it mean to say that an object is appearing within consciousness? The first person experience is the only perspective of reality that I have. I cannot know if there is a third-person perspective because all I have of life is a first-person. Is this true? Well, the only way I can know anything exists in the world is through my own personal experience. Is this true? How else can I know and experience the world if it is not from this first-person perspective? Any notions of a world outside of my experience is imaginary from my first-person perspective. But is the world that I imagine that is outside of my direct experience real and does it exist? If there really is no external world, how is detective work possible? How is it possible that I am affected by things outside of my experience? But if there is an external reality, then what would it be doing if there were no observers? If the universe had no observers, wouldn't it be like there was no universe at all? From the perspective of not have any observers in reality would be like nothing ever existed, but would there still be a universe that exists? What does it mean to say that something exists but that cannot be observed? Then again, how is it that I am affected by things outside of experience if there is no external world? For example, someone could kill me in my sleep or I could get hit by a car from behind. If there is no external world, then how is it that I am affected by things outside of my experience and again, how is detective work possible? I know that there is no database in the universe about how a murder happened. A detective is relying on concept and imagination to solve murder cases, but isn't there a world from which the crime scene is happening? Just because there is no witness, does not mean that something does not exist right? Where is this typing occurring and who is reading my message? Aren't I already assuming that such a world exists? This is my contemplation, I still have not found an answer besides the point that I just do not know. I will continue to remain skeptical about whether there is or not an external world until I find out for myself. Can anyone help me? I am rather new to contemplation and have just finished Peter Ralston's Book of Not Knowing. Thank you for your help!

What happens to consciousness when we go to sleep? It goes back to natural state? I guess there is no such thing as no-consciousness when we sleep. If there is no-consciousness when we "lose" consciousness, then how can we wake up? If there is no-consciousness then how can consciousness come to be? So consciousness in its natural state is like that state which was before we were born, when we are in deep-sleep and when we die? Thanks for your reply! I am new to this work, and I am willing to take any advice you have or any book recommendations! Thank you!

Thanks everybody for all of your replies! I sincerely appreciate all of your help! How can I have a firsthand experience of Nothingness or God. I can kinda understand it, but I would much rather experience it for myself than to take on as a belief like you all stated. I have been contemplating a lot, but I am not sure how thinking about life will get me to the nature of life itself, God, Infinity, Non-dual Consciousness, etc. In addition, how can we know that consciousness or nothingness exists? Isn’t it circular to say that we know consciousness exists because it is the space of that which all knowledge and experience is possible? If this is the case, can consciousness know itself to exist? If everything known to exist can only take place in consciousness, then what does it mean for something to exist, let only for consciousness to exist? How can I have an experience or know the nature of this Void, Consciousness or Nothingness? Can this Void be known through contemplation? Meditation? How? How can I contemplate that which I have never experienced? I assume that I have not experienced nothingness or I am experiencing it right now? If so, how can I get this epiphany of my true nature? Thanks. Thank you!

How can we know that consciousness or nothingness exists? Isn’t it circular to say that we know consciousness exists because it is the space of that which all knowledge and experience is possible? If this is the case, can consciousness know itself to exist? If everything known to exist can only take place in consciousness, then what does it mean for something to exist, let only for consciousness to exist? How can I have an experience or know the nature of this Void, Consciousness or Nothingness? Can this Void be known through contemplation? Meditation? How? How can I contemplate that which I have never experienced? I assume that I have not experienced nothingness. If so, how can I get this epiphany of my true nature? Thanks.

This question basically states it. Is death something that we know to be true or is it a belief that we imagine? Notice that you have never experienced death as a reality for yourself, so how can we know that death is a reality if we have never experienced it first hand? If we have not experienced something in our direct experience, then it is a belief. Knowledge can only be derived through experience, and yet death is not an experience. In my contemplation, I went so far as to question why I assume that I will die. I find my assumption based off of the experience I’ve had with others dying and through a collection of beliefs. But how do I know that I will die based off of the experiences in my environment? Why make such a generalization? The “fact” that “everyone dies” seems to me like a belief because do we really have an experience of everyone dying? Is it possible that there may be some humans who have never died (like the immortal Jellyfish)?? Please let your thoughts. I know it sounds stupid, but can we know death to be a reality without a firsthand experience of it? I read The Book of Not Knowing and still struggle with the idea that death is a reality through the method of knowledge displaced by Peter Ralston. Thank you!