Osaid

Moderator
 View profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    3,209

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Osaid

  1. Posted · Edited by Osaid

    18 hours ago, zurew said:

    In the 'consciousness is the only thing that exists' things being ontologically other than consciousness is impossible - and thats an existential limitation.

    It's not an existential limitation because it is imagination. Your imagination can't limit anything existentially. Your imagination is itself something that exists. Existence can't limit itself through non-existence. Non-existence is not something that actually exists, by definition. 

    Its like asking "why isn't the word donkey actually a donkey?" Because then it wouldn't be a word anymore, it would be a donkey. In order for a word to exist as a word, it can't be an actual donkey. In order for impossibility to exist as impossibility, it can't be possible. Again, you're stuck in this intellectual catch-22. You can't find proof because proof can never be the thing that is being proved. There is no proof for imagination outside of imagination. The entire thing is imaginary. When it becomes something that isn't imagination, it becomes possible, and so it isn't impossible. And so you continue to ask "why doesn't imagination exist as something that isn't imagination?"

    18 hours ago, zurew said:

    That would also paradoxically be an existential limitation, that impossibility can only be imagined and that it can't actually exist.

    It "doesn't exist" in the sense that the contents of imagination don't exist as something outside of imagination. Meaning, imagination is never not imagination.

    It's not that impossibility can only be imagined, it's that impossibility is always imagination and it can't not be imagination. When you say "it can't actually exist", you are expecting imagination to be something which isn't imagination, and then perceiving that as non-existence.

    There can't be a thing that actually "can't exist." You have to imagine that first. Thus it only exists as imagination. Imagination does exist, it just can't point to anything that exists outside of itself. 

    Even if everything did exist, you would still imagine impossibility, because imagination still exists. This further elaborates on the catch-22 I was talking about earlier.

    It's like looking at "1 + 1 = 3" and then going "how come I can't find any proof for it"? Because it is defined in a way where you can't find proof for it. It is a thing without proof, by definition. If it has proof, then it stops being that thing. You can only ask questions about it but the questions can't have an answer because that is how it defines itself. It only exists as a question. It is intellectual stagnation. 

  2. Posted · Edited by Osaid

    Sounds like vulnerable/covert NPD. Research vulnerable/covert NPD.

    BPD is often comorbid with NPD. The line between the two is quite thin actually, but I digress.

    If they fit vulnerable/covert NPD very well and you suspect them to have it, then the relationship is probably not salvageable since they are probably purposefully abusing you.

    Diagnoses aside, listen to how you feel and think above all else. You don't need to know what their diagnostics are to know whether you should stay or not. Do you feel constant anxiety around them? Do they gaslight? Do they manipulate? Do they instill a false hope that they will change or get better, only to contradict that sentiment time and time again? Do you want to experience all of those things for a significant period of your life time? 

    I have to say though, everything you described is textbook covert narcissism. I am 100% convinced they have covert NPD.

  3. Posted · Edited by Osaid

    10 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

    But there can be more perception of the existence

    "Can be more" refers to a future perception. That "you" can be in a future which isn't happening right now. That "you" can be something which isn't happening right now. That "you" can be something which you aren't.

    You can't be something that is perceived later. That is never your experience no matter what. Because that creates two of you; one which is happening right now and one which is happening later. The limitation is the idea that you can be two things.

  4. Posted

    45 minutes ago, Davino said:

    @Osaid What do you say about the thread question?

    Quote

    There cannot be more or less consciousness

     

    I agree.

    "More" consciousness, relative to what? Another part of consciousness?

    "Less" consciousness, relative to what? Another part of consciousness?

    No, there are no parts, it's all consciousness. When you say "more" or "less" you divide consciousness from itself.

    It is the exact same as saying "there is more or less existence." "Existence" is not a quantifiable quality, it is infinite. Same goes for consciousness.

    If you concur that every single thing that exists is consciousness, then there is simply no such thing as "more or less" of it. 

  5. Posted · Edited by Osaid

    44 minutes ago, Davino said:

    Nothing cocreates Everything

    You can't experience your experience being created. You could say that is how "nothing creates."

    Creation is "nothing" in that it is undefined and unlimited by anything. It is no thing. It is not "a thing" because "things" are divisions and dualities and limitations.

    44 minutes ago, Davino said:

    Can we even get out of this?

    There's nothing to get out of, literally.

    Your mind divides and limits reality. It tries to turn reality into a thought. It turns you into a thought.

    Trying to "get out of" thought is just another thought; that "you" are "in thought" and need to get out of it. Throw the medium away altogether.

  6. Posted

    3 minutes ago, Yousif said:

    the problem with you people on here is that you would say one thing is real and another isn’t

    I never said that. I said it is imaginary.

    Meaning, it's you thinking. 

    There can't be you thinking of yourself. Because that is two of you. "You" thinking and "you" being thought of. There can't be two "beings."

    7 minutes ago, Yousif said:

    there’s no difference between the relative and the absolute

    There is no "relative" aside from what you think is relative. In the same way how there is no unicorn aside from what you think is a unicorn. Both are thoughts/imagination.

    The truth inside of the above statement is what is "absolute."

    Even if you think the relative is the absolute, or that the absolute is the relative. It is still just thinking, which is relative, and not absolute.

    In the same way that no matter how hard you believe you are a unicorn, it doesn't change the fact of it being a belief. The medium of imagination does not change into something which is not itself. A human who believes they are a unicorn is a human who believes they are a unicorn, not a human which became a unicorn. Someone who believes that relativity exists is someone who believes that relativity exists, not that they are actually experiencing relativity.

  7. Posted · Edited by Osaid

    1 hour ago, Yousif said:

    excludes duality

    I still imagine things. Nothing against it. 

    Something non-dual can't exclude anything by its own nature.

    1 hour ago, Yousif said:

    pretend it don’t exist

    The good thing is that you don't have to pretend.

    Believing that you are dual is always inherently pretend/imagination though.

    1 hour ago, Yousif said:

    get to the non-dual after you emerge all the dualities

    You can't emerge from imagination because it's imaginary; you were never inside it in the first place.

    1 hour ago, Yousif said:

    you think you’re a human

    You can't think that you are a human. 

    In the same way you can't think that you are a unicorn. Or you can't think that you have wings. 

    1 hour ago, Yousif said:

    denying your relative life and identity will get you no where.

    There is literally nothing to deny, aside from imagination.

    Imagining yourself is denying what you are.

  8. Posted

    On 3/29/2024 at 3:09 PM, zurew said:

    You can create any kind of sentence that has a truth value and the negation of that sentence can be true at the same time. For example saying that "Consciousness is the only thing that exists" and "Consciousness is not the only thing that exists" can both be true at the same time if you go outside of classical logic.

    Literally everything becomes possible without any constrains

    Ah ok, I think I get what you mean.

    You're saying that if infinity exists and everything is unlimited, then it must be possible for everything to not be consciousness.

    But nothing impossible exists. You're just imagining it. That is my point. When you say "impossible" you're effectively talking about nothing. When you say "limitation" you're effectively talking about nothing.

    In order to perceive limitation you must first imagine that something isn't possible yet. The impossible aspect is made of intellect/imagination. It exists as imagination, not impossibility.

    What you're doing is like imagining the word "non-existence" and then saying "but look, this doesn't exist, that means reality isn't unlimited." What you don't realize is that the word points to nothing therefore it doesn't prove any limitation. There's no word which actually points to "impossibility" as an existential occurrence, otherwise it would be pointing to something, which means the thing it is pointing to is not impossible.

    This is what is happening when you say "consciousness is not the only thing that exists." The words point to non-existence. If there was a part of reality which wasn't consciousness, you would continue to use a lack of consciousness (non-existence) in order to limit reality because it literally experientially only exists as a concept, there is nothing outside of it. Concepts aren't impossible (nothing is) so they continue to exist.

    You are essentially imagining a concept, and then going "but why doesn't my concept exist as something that isn't a concept, that means reality is limited." There are already things that exist outside of concept, but once something exists outside of the concept it becomes something which doesn't prove the concept anymore. You've created an intellectual catch-22 for yourself which points to absolutely nothing. Because it was never about what exists, it's about imagining what doesn't exist.

    It's literally like asking "how come my imagination isn't something that isn't imagination?" Because you literally defined it that way. That is what imagination is. An imaginary unicorn can't be imaginary if it is real. Non-existence can't be non-existence if it actually exists. Impossibility can't be impossibility if it actually exists. Impossibility exists as imagination. Unicorns exist as imagination. Non-existence exists as imagination.

  9. Posted · Edited by Osaid

    On 3/30/2024 at 0:43 AM, Leo Gura said:

    Infinite Consciousness dumbs itself down to create a human consciousness. Don't fool yourself. You are a dumbed down version of God. The full version of God is hidden from you.

    This is ironically a very human perspective. Only a perspective a human could have, literally.

    Interesting regression going from "you are God" to "you are a human who sometimes taps into the entirety of God."

  10. Posted · Edited by Osaid

    18 minutes ago, zurew said:

    if you don't mean limitation or a lack of possibility.

    You are imagining both of those meanings after the fact.

    I am using all the definitions of words as any other person would.

    "Impossible" is another word which points to "non-existence." Impossible means it can't happen. Something "not happening" doesn't mean limitation exists, it means nothing is there. Meaning, it says literally nothing about what is limited or unlimited. Something "not happening" can't affect what "is happening."

    The intellect uses words which point to nothing outside of itself. You further interpret meaning from that word, like "limitation" and "lack of possibility." But there's just nothing there beyond intellect itself. It self-terminates. I am not imposing limits, I am saying that the word points to absolutely nothing. Like experientially, the only thing that exists is the word itself, nothing else. 

    Pointing out that something does not exist is not metaphysics or a framework. It is just me pointing out that you are imagining things. It is very simple. It is not logical at all.

    I am literally pointing to your experience and saying "that is not in your experience." That is not a logic or framework. I am just pointing out that your logic doesn't symbolize anything.

    18 minutes ago, zurew said:

    Once contradictions are allowed

    18 minutes ago, zurew said:

    Allowing metaphysical contradictions

    18 minutes ago, zurew said:

    if you allow metaphysical contradictions.

    I don't understand what you mean by these.

    When are "contradictions allowed"?

  11. Posted · Edited by Osaid

    56 minutes ago, zurew said:

    Why do you point out and care about contradictions? - You are limiting metaphysics by aristotelian logic , no ?

    The reason why I point out contradictions is because a contradiction does not exist, that is literally what defines a contradiction. 

    It's like you come up to me and say "Isn't it crazy how it's raining unicorns today" and then I'm like "no it's not raining unicorns." I have to point out the contradiction or else the conversation cannot progress without being delusional.

    I am using logic to point to something which is not logic. What I am doing is pointing out that none of these words point to anything that exists. I am pointing out that your logic makes no sense. That is all. I am not making you adopt it with new logic.

    When you say "limitation" you're talking about something that doesn't exist. When you say "more consciousness" you're talking about something that doesn't exist. All those quoted phrases are synonymous with "non-existence." My only goal is to make you realize that, nothing else. When you do realize that, you are left outside of logic, wherever that might leave you.

    I am not trying to make you believe in a better or more accurate logic or metaphysics. My goal is to make you stop believing in whatever kind of logic or metaphysics that you currently believe in, and my method for doing that is by making you realize the contradiction for yourself. You can't believe your logic if you realize it is contradictory. I am using logic to make you realize why your logic is contradictory. And you can only realize contradiction by being met with an opposing stream of logic. I use logic as a tool to untangle logic, not for you to adopt it as more logic. I do not have an end goal or framework to my logic other than simply just using it to untangle you from your own logic. That is the only imperative on my part. 

  12. Posted · Edited by Osaid

    29 minutes ago, Princess Arabia said:

    Would you say then that direct experience is not imagined and that is direct aliveness, what's happening and all there is.  Anything else is imaginary.

    Direct experience is not any thing. Things are divisions. Mind divides. Experience cannot divide itself from itself. There aren't two experiences being experienced.

  14. Posted

    16 minutes ago, Princess Arabia said:

    Are you saying here and pretty much your whole comment is that existence is all there is.

    You can only experience what exists. Notice how this immediately intuitively makes sense until your logic comes running through.

    "Doesn't exist" "non-existence" "lack" are words which point to something that doesn't exist. That's how they are defined.

    Making conclusions about consciousness, or what does exist, or what is experienced, through words which point to non-existence, is a serious blunder. Because those words can never describe what exists, by their definition. It's like if you ask me what vanilla ice cream tastes like and I tell you "vanilla is not Santa Claus." It doesn't tell you anything about what vanilla is because Santa Claus is not. The point of reference is something which does not exist. You can't point to what exists using non-existence. You can't conclude that experience is limited by pointing to non-existence.

    Non-existence describes nothing about existence, naturally. It is intellectual stagnation. You get caught in it like a hamster wheel because it seems to make logical sense.

    It is important not to confuse "nothing" with non-existence. Non-existence is intellect. Nothing is actual.

    Nothing has no intellectual basis, no conclusions, it says nothing about reality, literally. Non-existence, on the other hand, has an intellectual basis, it is a conclusion, a way to define how experience operates. Nothing != non-existence. Your experience says nothing about what is not experienced, literally.

    16 minutes ago, Princess Arabia said:

    There are no limitations because anything that would be considered a limitation would be mind-created. E,g if I wanted to grow wings and fly, that is just the mind thinking and imagining that and is not in my direct experience so it really isn't a limitation. I'm experiencing what I'm experiencing and that is existence, so anything that I consider to be a limitation isn't really a limitation since it's only something I'm imagining? 

    That is on the right track.

    Limitation is literally "what doesn't exist." That means the limitation itself doesn't exist either. It's imagined. It's really profound if you grasp it.

    The color red doesn't exist as "not blue" or "not yellow." It exists as red. Which causes you to think about blue and yellow, which is not blue and yellow, just thinking/imagination. If your thinking was actually blue and yellow, your experience would not be limited anymore. Your mind is desperately trying to grasp at non-existence and use it as proof that your experience is limited, but that is impossible.

    When you say "my experience is limited because blue doesn't exist", you've literally admitted right there that the thing which is limiting your experience does not exist. 

  15. Posted · Edited by Osaid

    6 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

    You can talk all you want but there is no kangaroo in your experience right now.

    Non-existence is not experienced. Of course. By definition.

    6 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

    But there could be.

    Non-existence couldn't be. 

    6 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

    You are not conscious of kangaroos, no matter what excuses you concoct.

    I am not conscious of non-existence. Of course not.

    You are playing an intellectual game with yourself.

  16. Posted

    Just now, Leo Gura said:

    It doesn't mean that.

    It does. You just can't see it. 

    You simply can't perceive consciousness as "more" or "less" without comparing consciousness against something other than consciousness. 

    1 minute ago, Leo Gura said:

    There exist kangaroos. Kangaroos are made of consciousness. But a kangaroo is not currently in your consciousness.

    You can't experience non-existence. Consciousness does not have that feature. Experience does not have that feature. It is by definition "not consciousness." 

    You don't experience a lack of kangaroos, that is impossible. You can't experience a lack of something, that is an existential contradiction. You infer that through your knowledge of kangaroos. In the same way you don't actually experience a lack of consciousness when you go to sleep. 

    The color red is not experienced as a lack of kangaroos, even though it isn't a kangaroo. The smell of a flower is not experienced as a lack of kangaroos, even though it isn't a kangaroo. You can only experience what exists. You can only imagine or infer what doesn't exist through what exists. It's just existence. There's no limitation anywhere until you imagine it.

    You're imagining a variable which doesn't exist in your current experience (kangaroo/non-existence) and then calling it a limitation. No, the limitation literally does not exist. If there is a lack of kangaroos you do not perceive that, it is literally non-existence. It says nothing about what exists. 

    If you say "experience is limited because kangaroos do not exist" you have literally admitted in that sentence that the limitation itself does not exist. 

  17. Posted

    In order to perceive consciousness as less or more you have to perceive consciousness as an object in your mind which can be pitted against things other than itself. It's all a relative conception. An intellectual illusion which points to nothing outside of itself. Just mind dividing and separating as it tends to do. Nothing more to see here.

    "More consciousness" means there is something beyond consciousness, which is impossible. It's the classic folly of believing something can exist beyond the absolute. This is why you can't become conscious through intellect or logic or mind. Because the mind can only divide, and division is limitation.

  21. Posted · Edited by Osaid

    11 hours ago, Javfly33 said:

    Sure, it has a body

    Quote

    You can not tap into all Infinity while maintaining a body. 

    ?

    11 hours ago, Javfly33 said:

    but not only that I mean 😅

    Not only that, but something other than what you are right now?

    I know what you mean. You mean the future. The you which isn't here with us right now.

    But when you get there, it won't include a body. And then we'll say "it's not infinite because it's excluding a body."

    Maybe infinity can't be "imagining other experiences"?

    Maybe your idea of infinity has trapped you in a logical catch-22 which points to absolutely nothing? And you chase that "nothing" like a hamster in an infinite wheel?

    11 hours ago, Javfly33 said:

    I guess you can, but the price might be human life. 

    Hahaha is this a threat to signify your annoyance or am I misinterpreting?

  22. Posted

    2 minutes ago, Javfly33 said:

    Infinity has everything. 

    But not a body?

    3 minutes ago, Javfly33 said:

    You are just playing with words

    Pointing out contradiction is "playing with words"?

    Quote

    You can not tap into all Infinity while maintaining a body. 

    4 minutes ago, Javfly33 said:

    Infinity has everything. 

    ?

    5 minutes ago, Javfly33 said:

    The absolute is Infinite. It is not confined to any perception or experience.

    Right.

  23. Posted

    2 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

    I just perceive the limitation

    A limitation is a relation between two things. 

    For something to be limited, it is limited by a thing.

    For limitation to occur, there is "Thing A", which is. And then "Thing B", which is not. The perception of a thing which is and a thing which is not, creates the perception of "limitation."

    But how can something which is not, Thing B, ever be experienced? It can't. It is non-existence. It must be imagined and inferred.

    Any single limitation you can think of, is simply just what you can think of. Mind. Imagination. Nothing else.

    Do you experience yourself as two? Are there two experiences? Are there two experiences which can relate and limit each other? Or do you simply divide it through your mind, and mistake it for yourself?

  24. Posted · Edited by Osaid

    19 minutes ago, Javfly33 said:

    You can not tap into all Infinity while maintaining a body.

    That is a limitation, which is finite.

    "Infinity cannot have a body"

    What you talk about is not infinite. Because you limit it in that sentence.

    Quote

    beyond one's own current senses.

    "Beyond current senses" means "beyond the absolute" or "what is not occurring yet."

    It means there is an experience somewhere else in the future, which you can be. Which you currently aren't.

    That can't be the case. Not in infinity.