Osaid
Moderator-
Content count
3,209 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Posts posted by Osaid
-
-
7 minutes ago, Salvijus said:Because certain smells are better for the body. And certain foods are better for the body.
If you observe your experience that's not how it goes. You find the sensation itself pleasurable. You don't find logic behind it in order to find it pleasurable. There is no such thing as a song or smell that is better for the body. You can prefer the taste of one candy over the other, but both are equally bad for the body.
-
2 minutes ago, Salvijus said:Mmmm... I don't follow you here. For me value and meaning are literally the same.
It is as simple as this:
Why do you prefer apple pie over cherry pie? Because one has more meaning? No, just the sensation of taste. The sensation is void of meaning.
Why do you prefer the smell of a flower over the smell of a trash can? Because one has more meaning? No, just the sensation of smell. The sensation is void of meaning. -
6 minutes ago, Salvijus said:But from the perspective that you're not the ego and not the body suddenly nothing means anything anymore.
The body has never meant anything. That doesn't remove its value. There is no "neutral state" you reach by removing meaning, you simply just reach existence itself without your imagination about it. Meaning is literally imagination. You don't lose anything but imagination, it does not change the value of what exists, it only changes the value of what is imaginary.
Meaning is not inherently a function of ego either. You can imagine meaning without imagining yourself as separate. Meaning is just a function of your mind to piece things together, which often gets co-opted by the ego. Meaning is what happens when you comprehend words on a screen or read a book. -
7 minutes ago, Salvijus said:You see. Maybe we just have different English. Because for me these two words are synonymous haha.
11 minutes ago, Osaid said:You value things that have no meaning all the time. You value music. You value taste. You value the smell of a flower.
The value in a flower doesn't come from meaning, it comes from the pure sensation of the smell. The value of taste doesn't come from meaning, it comes from the pure sensation of taste. The value of music doesn't come from meaning, it comes from the pure sensation of sound.
-
9 minutes ago, Salvijus said:Yes I realized the world neutral means to you "without effect" or smth. But what I was trying to say "all effects, big or small ultimately have no value only if you give it value. If you don't give it value. It has no meaning. And it is the ego that determines the value of things"
When you value something, it is because of what that thing exists as. There is an existential element to value beyond meaning. Something sweet can't have the same value as something bitter. You can't decide to make something valuable by thinking of it as valuable, you look at how it impacts existence in the first place. You value things that have no meaning all the time. You value music. You value taste. You value the smell of a flower. Meaning is imagined. Meaning is not the same as value. Thus the ego doesn't determine value, although the ego itself can be seen as valuable.
-
26 minutes ago, Javfly33 said:A human appears interacting with a 'world' appears but it doesn´t seem there is a self in my experience. Until I create it. Then all illusion starts haha.
Right.
The experience of being human is the experience of the world it interacts with.
There is the "experience of being human" but there is no "experience that has a human inside of it." -
Just now, Salvijus said:all of it is ultimately meaningless, or neutral event.
If you equate "meaningless" with "neutral" then I agree, but your previous answers indicate that a lack of meaning is equivalent to a lack of care or value, which is not the case.
-
6 minutes ago, Salvijus said:losing all interest in survival when it becomes clear you're infinite and can not die?
Death is not a necessary motivator for being alive. You don't lose interest in life when you realize you can't die.
-
Just now, Salvijus said:"I like bitter food, I don't like bitter food" is am ego reaction. Body doesn't care at all how things taste only ego does.
And here's an interesting thought. If the likes and dislikes of the ego are gone. Then suddenly... All events become neatrual..
The body absolutely does care. You will experience physical biological motivators like an uptick in dopamine for example. And that is unrelated to what you think or imagine about it. You can't imagine or think that away. Being physically tired is not neutral, that is your body indicating that you should go to sleep. You can't imagine or think that away. The idea of a "neutral sensation" is fantasy. Your imagination does not control whether a physical sensation is neutral or not.
Your preference for vanilla over chocolate is also completely unrelated to ego. You did not decide that you want to prefer vanilla over chocolate. If you think that you did decide it, that is where ego begins, not the actual physical occurrence.
You are conflating biology with ego. -
29 minutes ago, Salvijus said:The example I gave earlier could help to explain this.
It's like when I play video games(just as an example) , during that intense period I forget all about my life problems, hunger, pain, plans about my future, relationship problems, everything is gone from my experience. Most gamers should know that feeling when they forget all their bodily needs suddenly. And when the game is finished they remember "fuck I forgot i was cooking food and now it's burned"
That's how it is with someone with zero interest in the ego. Nothing that is related to survival matters anymore to them. And with that pain of 50.years is nothing to them aswell. Not something that they would even notice. Or pay attention to.
I'm not denying that your shift in attention phased out the pain because of a difference in desire. I'm just denying that this excludes pain from infinity. There is no boundary or limitation to the sensation of pain, it is as infinite as anything else.
What you experienced was a shift in attention or desire, not necessarily a lack of ego. It's not like the video game induced enlightenment or no self. -
1 minute ago, Salvijus said:A taste of vanilla has no value. It's just a sensation. Pain has no value. It's just a sensation. All sensation are neutral ultimately.
The sensation is the value. That is why your body retracts when tasting something bitter instead of something sweet. That reaction itself is the value it provides. You don't need to imagine value further than that. You can't just imagine value onto something bitter by saying "I like tasting things that are bitter" because it doesn't actually change the sensation itself. It only changes how you imagine it. And then perhaps that imagination has value to you as well.
There is no such thing as a "neutral sensation" because every single sensation is different. It is like saying all colors are neutral. -
9 minutes ago, Salvijus said:It's not about excluding the body, it's about giving it no value. It is only ego that gives value to the body. Pure awareness sees everything just neutral event. Neutral energy.
You don't need ego to give value to things. You don't need to imagine things in order to give value to things. When you remove meaning from existence you don't arrive at a lack of value. You don't need to imagine meaning or value in order for things to have value. That is why vanilla ice cream tastes good despite what you think or imagine about it.
What you're talking about is not neutral at all. It is a limitation which says that you shouldn't care about things. It is a limitation which says that you cannot value things. You will drive yourself insane imagining a limitation like that because it goes against the inherent experiential value of existence.17 minutes ago, Salvijus said:Because...
Imagine there is a glorious beautiful blazing sunset and on your left there is poo on the ground. Then I will ask you. Which one are you going to pay attention to? A sunset or a poo?
That's how it is with someone who has lost interest in serving the ego. His attention is so absorbed on bliss of creation that a sensation of pain is completely not worth paying attention to.
Please tell me this makes sense...
So the body is analogous to "poop" or "pain"? I don't think that analogy tracks appropriately. Why would the universe exclude poop or pain from infinity; just because it is less pleasant to look at? Pleasurable feelings do not dictate whether something is infinite or not.
A lack of attention is not no self. That is just a lack of pain. No self is not about deciding to focus on pleasurable sensations. There are many who lack pain and experience blissful states who still have a self. -
8 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:Just as a plant does the things it does, a human thinks. The plant, based on its genetics and given the circumstances, decides to approach the light of a window. A human, based on his genetics and given the circumstances, thinks: I'm going for a walk because the weather is good. Thought is the manifestation of what the human is, and the human is a being adapted to its changing circumstance, the same as the plant, only the human's circumstance changes faster.
A human is not self. A human is. A plant is. A self also is, but it is only ever imagination. And it can be unimagined.
Again, there is a difference between being a human and thinking that you are a human. Thinking that you are a human is self. It is imagination. It is thinking. -
3 minutes ago, Salvijus said:Now if we contemplate what happens when the perception of ego is seen through as imaginery. The only outcome of such a seeing can be to lose interest in the ego. Or in other words. All desire to serve the ego is gone.
If we push a bit further then with it all attention and focus on the body is gone.
If we push it further and contemplate what that means you get a samadhi state where a that particular mind is so absorbed on infinity that sensations on the body mean nothing at all.The logic tracks until this point. You are conflating the perception of your body with ego. Why would being absorbed in infinity exclude the body? Is the body not infinite? At what point in infinity does the body lose its meaning?
Do things only have value and meaning when you imagine a false self alongside it? -
23 minutes ago, Salvijus said:The key thing to understand is that. Sense of self(ego) is the cause of many many many actions.
And no self state has huge implications in change of behavior and how you feel.
That is correct. Again, there is a psychosomatic connection between self and what is not self. The part that creates action is not self, but it is a reaction to the imagined self. The imagined self which cannot do anything is being used as an object of desire, and that object of desire physically drives you to act out a desire in accordance with that self. Physical movement is not self, but it can be used to serve the self, and this relationship is what is called ego or self-image. It is the belief that you can imagine yourself which causes the physical reactions which serve that self, because now you have a desire to serve and protect that self. In the exact same way how a kid who believes in Santa Claus acts differently while imagining Santa Claus. Santa Claus is not controlling anything, it is the reaction to the belief that Santa Claus does control things which causes the kid to physically act it out. And it is the same reason why that kid will feel genuine physical fear when you tell them that they are on the naughty list.
I wrote out some of the tangible measurable symptoms that come along with the no self state here:
-
6 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:Thought is the manifestation of the self, not its substance. The human self has a genetic basis, and develops in life in society, since humans are hive entities.
Biology is not self. Biology is beyond thought. And there is no "self" which could hope to take responsibility for the causal chain of events which lead to the creation of that biology. You don't control your heartbeat. You don't even choose what you think because that itself is just more thinking.
In the same way how a plant growing upwards is not self. That is just its nature and intelligence playing itself out. If the plant has a thought which says "I want to grow downwards" it will not grow downwards. If the plant has a thought which says "I want to grow upwards" that thought still does not control its ability to grow upwards, it was in its nature and intelligence to do that anyways. The self does not control anything other aside from what it imagines about itself. If a human has the thought "I want to make coffee" then it reacts accordingly to that thought, but it certainly didn't choose that thought. You react to the thought, you don't choose it. If there is no coffee left, then you don't actually end up making coffee. You then react to the fact that you ran out of coffee, and you have a thought "I need to go to the store." You didn't choose that you want to go to the store, you reacted to the fact that you don't have coffee. And so the chain of intelligent reactions ensue, void of any real self.
This is not to be conflated with a lack of free will, it is just that you can only act as intelligent as your nature or existence allows. Free will is a false premise based on the belief that your imagination can bend and control reality. The concept of free will involves a "chooser" which chooses between two choices. But the chooser and choices themselves are imagined, they are both the same singular imagined object. This does not mean you don't have free will, it means there is no "you" which can gain or lose free will in the first place. Free will does not exist at all, therefore you cannot lose or gain it. You can only unimagine it. You don't lose or gain free will in the same way that you don't lose or gain Santa Claus by unimagining it. -
3 hours ago, Javfly33 said:Why you need a sense of self? To plan and think about stuff, drive, do stuff, etc.
Self doesn't control anything. It's imaginary like Santa Claus. You don't need it to think. It is literally made of thinking. It doesn't exist outside of thinking therefore it could not possibly have any control over thinking.
-
7 hours ago, Davino said:Many times before you realize something is a paradox you think it is a contradiction, isn't it so?
Not anymore. I might have used to think of it that way. It is very clear to me now what a paradox is though. It is just a failure of your logic to capture reality. Reality is not logic and logic was never meant to capture the whole of reality in the first place, that goes beyond its use. Therefore you get a paradox when you try to apply logic to certain aspects of reality.
There is actually a subtle difference in definitions which is well known linguistically. A contradiction will point to something entirely different existentially than a paradox.
Google defines contradiction as:
a combination of statements, ideas, or features of a situation that are opposed to one another.
Google defines paradox as:
a statement or proposition that, despite sound (or apparently sound) reasoning from acceptable premises, leads to a conclusion that seems senseless, logically unacceptable, or self-contradictory.
I think this is a good succinct summary I found on Google:
Many people use the words paradox and contradiction in the same way, but there are subtle differences between them. A paradox defies logic and expectations. A contradiction is something that contradicts itself, meaning it says something is true, then says the same thing is false. -
3 hours ago, zurew said:In mathematics you can find claims about bigger and smaller infinities. Think of it this way: You can have a set of natural numbers that will contain numbers starting from 0 to infinite. However that set is smaller compared to the set of integers (which includes negatives as well). And that set is smaller than the set of rational numbers.
I am aware of the mathematical subsets of infinity, and yes that is different from what I mean.
Existential/metaphysical infinity = no limits or boundaries or divisions
When you say there is a "smaller infinity", it is not really existentially infinity because you are dividing experience into a smaller subset of itself. It is a division, and thus a limitation, and thus a boundary, and thus it is finite in some sense.
There is a conflation happening where infinity is being conflated with an "infinite amount of things" when it is actually just "one thing that is infinite." If there are "things", that itself is finitude, because "things" are a division that your mind makes. It is your mind comparing and contrasting. -
6 hours ago, Leo Gura said:It's one thing to just parrot Infinity, it's another thing to experience Infinity and all its strange manifestations.
Reality is always relatively manifesting itself in an infinite amount of ways. That is why science will explore physical reality forever. That is why psychonauts will explore psychedelic states forever. That is why writers will make different stories forever. That is why video game developers will make different video games forever. Exploring a certain aspect of reality does not mean you are exploring absolute truth, even if it is infinite in its variety. Life has always been "strange manifestations", there is nothing else here.
6 hours ago, Leo Gura said:but you don't really understand everything it entails.
If you don't understand everything it entails, that simply means it wasn't actually infinite. You are looking at infinity as if it is some knowledge or skillset you acquire. Like you can infinitely understand mathematics or you can infinitely understand the physical universe. It is not like that. That is relative knowledge. That is not existential or infinite. "Infinite" doesn't mean there is a greater amount of it you can understand forever. That is not true infinity, that is your mind splitting up infinity into an infinite amount of objects you can acquire or learn or experience. Infinite means there are no limitations or boundaries or divisions to the experience.
When you say there is more to understand, that is you dividing and splitting infinity into two objects, one which lacks what the other infinity does not lack. Infinite is never two, it is always one seamless thing. When you split something like that you immediately turn it into something finite. -
44 minutes ago, Davino said:No... there are infinite infinities for infinity
That is just your mind dividing things. You are trying to separate infinity from itself. To be fair, mind can't do much else.
44 minutes ago, Davino said:Contradiction is a feature of infinity. It doesn't make logical sense to you nor with the experiences you have had or what you can imagine to be possible but infinity is not bound even by itself being infinity. It is extremelly paradoxical by nature.
No. There is a difference between paradox and contradiction.
Contradiction does not exist outside of intellect, and so it is never experienced beyond that. It is impossible to experience contradiction as something which is not intellect, and so it is an impossibility. Contradiction is recognizing a failure in logic. In other words, it is logic that points to nothing outside of itself. It is intellectual stagnation. It is you making a statement which opposes itself. Therefore, the statement doesn't exist outside of itself.
Paradox is being aware of that which cannot be captured by logic. It is possible to experience paradox, but only as something outside of the divisions of logic. A paradox is not contradictory because it is reached through sound logic, therefore the logic points to something existential, but that thing it points to seems to escape the logic itself.
Reality does not contradict anywhere, your human intellect and imagination is where the contradictions are generated. You view your logic as something which should apply to reality, and when it doesn't, you anthropomorphize the whole of reality by calling it contradictory, when it is actually just your own logic which contradicts. Logic and intellect contradict, not infinity or reality. -
24 minutes ago, Davino said:You can ever be more substance, you can ever be more Godly, more infinite.
How can infinite become "more infinite"? Unless it is lacking, and not truly "infinite"? How can something without boundary or limitations become more of that? Unless it was still limited by something? There is something very obviously missing here.
The way you're defining "infinite" contradicts itself, because you are saying that the previous infinite was limited, and thus that would actually make your previous conception finite.
Saying that there is "more infinite" is the same as saying that there is something beyond the absolute. There isn't. You think that there is something beyond infinity. And you will chase after that idea forever, not because there is actually something beyond infinity, but because you will never find it. The idea of "more infinite" is a contradiction, and so you are stuck chasing that ghost until you see through it. You perceive this ghost as "deeper awakenings" and "deeper truths", like a carrot on a stick that paradoxically gets farther and farther away with each awakening. -
3 minutes ago, r0ckyreed said:Exactly! Awakening must contradict itself at the deepest levels if reality is indeed a strange loop.
Or maybe, it indicates a fundamental error or corruption in the method for accessing truth.
The idea of "deeper truths" and "deeper awakenings" does indeed bring with it a massive contradiction, in the sense that it adds relativity to truth; that there is a state which lacks truth or depth, and then a higher state which does not lack that truth or depth. Overlooking this contradiction without reconciling the discrepancy may lead to false teachings such as the "bubbles inside of a sponge" supposition. -
On 3/15/2024 at 7:38 PM, r0ckyreed said:- Consciousness has many bubbles like a sponge. (Sponge analogy from Perception video).
How is it possible that Leo previously became directly conscious of this, but then later became directly conscious of something opposing this? How do you know that he is not just making that same mistake, over and over again? Something to think about.
in Spirituality, Consciousness, Awakening, Mysticism, Meditation, God
Posted
You don't enjoy the logic. There is logic behind it. But that's not what is pleasurable. You can't enjoy taste without taste. Taste is not logic. It is a sensation. There is no logic in hearing a good song, and there is no logic in experiencing the benefits of that. It is pure sensation.