Someone here

  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Someone here

  • Rank
    - - -

Personal Information

  • Location
  • Gender

Recent Profile Visitors

8,650 profile views
  1. Here in India..there are still people who literally worship osho . That gives you an idea of who this guy was . This is a famous video of Osho saying that there is no such thing as God. He calls God "the greatest lie invented by man ". Because man feel very helpess .so afraid of death .so burdened by life's problems. So they (people) use the idea of God as a ontological bed to rest their existential troubles on. I mean the guy (supposedly) was one of the wokest human beings ever. If you want to get a taste of how it feels like to see Jesus or Buddha talking..then listen to osho . Still i don't understand why in this video he says that God is a myth. Even though most of his books are filled with talks about God and the divine. I'm confused 😕.
  2. You are not awake .sorry. You are not awake until you deconstruct even love and nothing. Until you are left with just the present moment uncontextualized by anything.
  3. You are correct .existence is more fundamental than logic. You can't have logic without existence. But you can have existence without logic .and that's exactly what I'm talking about. "Existence without logic ".which means something illogical can exist. Because I think the key insight here is that infinity is prior to logic. Nothing governs infinity from outside .both in a literal and figurative sense. So reality ends up being absolutely infinite. And what we consider to be "logically impossible "is only so from our limited narrow perspective .which isn't all encompassing.
  4. So reality ,being infinite and unlimited, usese logic as a subset of itself to create pseudo impossibilities? So It produces those limitations but it itself is not bound by its creation (the logical rules )? I think a typical analysis of this problem is that logical impossibility is simply non-sense, and thus cannot be made “real” in physical terms in the first place. Example: If I say “The snow is frozen and the snow is not frozen” I haven’t put forward anything profound. I have just spoken jibberish. The proposition “A and notA” is logically impossible and cannot be made sense of. The omnipotence paradox, such as “Could God create a rock to heavy for God to lift.” is often analyzed as a logical impossibility. God cannot fulfill logical impossibilities not because God is not powerful enough, but because logical impossibilities aren’t stating any sort of state of affairs. They’re just jibberish. This is not to say that the omnipotence paradox must be analyzed this way, but it is a traditional way given the issue of logical v. physical impossibility.
  5. For me, unlike physical and metaphysical impossibilities, logical impossibility relies on human beings’ incapability to conceive and its negation together. If you consider inconceivability as impossibility, then you have an answer. But if you take impossibility apart from the human ability to conceive, question remains as a considerably stronger one.
  6. @Questioner what's the difference between your night time dreams and this waking experience that you are experiencing right now?
  7. I know that fundamentally these kinds of inquiries are fruitless . Yet I don't consider them to be a waste of time. I'm a big believer in "mental pleasure ". Philosophising to me gives me a high state 😅 Existence is not a matter of hypothetical possibility. Existence is necessarily at least as real as you and me. We cannot deny this. So all attributes of Existence are necessarily at least as real as you and me. So an Omnipresent thing/being (Existence) is necessarily at least as real as you and me. To reject Existence as being Omnipresent, Infinite, and Perfect, leads to semantical inconsistencies as highlighted in the OP. Existence is necessarily at least as real as you and me. Unicorns are not necessarily at least as real as you and me. But given the infiniteness of Existence, unicorns can come to be at least as real as you and me. Again the reason why x is hypothetically impossible (semantically inconsistent) is because Existence does not accommodate it. If x is semantically consistent, then necessarily, Existence accommodates it. As for my direct's both infinte and finite at the same time . Its finite in the sense that I can't fly or perform miracles. But it's infinite in the sense that if I tried to catch the beginning and ending of my experience (whether in terms of space or in terms of time) I can't actually find a clear boundary.
  8. I watched that video about strange loops .one of Leo's best videos . However, I'm curious to understand how do you link the concert of strange loops with what I call logical impossibilities? Because you only have two choices: You either believe Existence to be finite, or you believe it to be Infinite. There are no other possible beliefs about Existence. Existence being finite is clearly contradictory. It amounts to the contradiction of existence coming from non-existence, or non-existence having existed, or non-existence existing. A finite existence is contradictory, therefore Existence is infinite. Yet how can it be infinite If something like a square circle cannot exist in it ? You see there is a problem with both perspectives (whether existence is finite or infinite ).
  9. I remember Leo saying in one of his posts in the forum a time ago "infinity is the impossible made possible ". I think it is contradictory for a finite existence to have an infinite amount of potential. So a finite existence will not account for why have access to an infinity of things. Though existence being absolutely infinite it must contain absolutely everything. The point that is tripping me up whether infinity contains everything that's possible..or EVERYTHING. period (meaning even what we consider with our limited minds to be impossible or unimaginable).
  10. I guess I get this . When we are judging something as logically impossible we are using our finite mind's capacity to imagine. And that definitely has limitations. We can't imagine anything we want .our imagination is actually limited by what we already have experienced in the real world. But to infinite consciousness itself prior to the creation of this particular universe including our limited that there Is no constraints whatsoever. It can create a square that is also a circle. If we deny that then we are basically claiming that reality is finite .but that can't be .therefore logical impossibilities are paradoxially possible with absolute infinity.
  11. So you are saying infinity does include what we call logical impossibilities because its our finite minds that's ascribing the notion of "impossibility " onto a concept or a phenomenon? Or that God has infinite attributes and none of those attributes is impossible for God. God defines what is possible and what is impossible. If God transcends His attributes then His attributes do not define Him. If God is defined by His attributes then it is finite. And since God is infinite, it doesn't depend on its attributes like logical possibilities? ⁷
  12. Kant was wrong about noumena. There is no external objective world behind the scenes. All you have is the first order. The field of consciousness that you are experiencing right now .that's all that exists . I think you have to look at this in reverse, otherwise, it will result in an inconsistency in meaning/semantics. Here's why: 1) If x can happen, then x is hypothetically possible. If x can't happen, then x is hypothetically impossible. Agreed? 2) x can only happen if the potential exists for it to happen. If the potential does not exist for it to happen, then x is not hypothetically possible. It is hypothetically impossible. Agreed? 3) A finite existence cannot make all xs possible because a finite existence's potential, is finite. So, either we say: 3a) Not all possibilities are truly possible (which is as semantically inconsistent as saying not all triangles are truly triangles) 3b) All possibilities truly are possible (which is semantically consistent) Summary: There are no alternatives to 3a and 3b. 3a is contradictory. 3b semantically/logically requires Existence to be Infinite. Note that there is a difference between an unknown and a possibility which I believe is often grossly overlooked .I will attempt to highlight this: Whether or not there are unicorns in our galaxy is an unknown. Whether there will be unicorns in the future of our galaxy, again is unknown. Whether there can be unicorns in the future, is certainly yes. It is not an unknown. Whether or not beings with a 10th sense can exist in Existence, is an unknown. As in we don't know if Existence has the potential to produce a being with a 10th sense. So when i say it's possible that a being with a 10th sense is possible, I am in fact saying, 'it's unknown whether Existence is such that a being with a 10th sense is possible or not.
  13. In another thread I was having a conversation with @Vibroverse about infinity and the concept of logical impossibilities. I understand (theoretically at least) that reality is infinite. Not just that the universe stretches out infinitely in all directions or that time has no beginning or end . But infinte in all possible ways imaginable or unimaginable.....But does that include that infinity contains logical impossibilities? A logically impossible thing is a thing that cannot exist by definition because its definition contains a contradiction. squares that are also circles, married bachelors, non-existence existing, sitting and standing at the same time, these are all hypothetical impossibilities. What makes something a hypothetical impossibility? That it cannot exist. That it cannot be true of Existence. It cannot be true of Existence that there is a man sitting and standing at the same time. Or that there is a round square. Or that non-existence exists. Or that Existence does not exist. Or that Existence is finite. Or is that also included in absolute infinity?
  14. Well are not a human and a human at the same time . I like to distuingh between the false self (the human self ) and the true Self (the god self ). everyone is divided into these two selves, and people develop a false self to protect their inner, more vulnerable true self. The true self refers to a sense of self based on authentic experience, and the feeling of being truly present and alive. The false self is a defensive facade .. behind which the person can feel empty, it’s behaviours being learnt and controlled rather than spontaneous and genuine. The process of developing a false self begins at a very young age. As babies, we are at our truest. We cry, laugh and react in a way that is wholly authentic to our needs.. we are simply being. healthy development requires us to fully experience this time when we have no concern for the feelings and opinions of those looking after us. However, if as babies we are denied this opportunity to be ourselves, we learn to modify our impulses in a bid to receive the love we crave, and start constructing a false self.
  15. Yes you are partially correct . Enlightenment cannot be put onto simplified ,black and white ,categories. In the end you have to drop everything to become enlightened. And that includes the distinction between mystical or super natural..and physical or natural (I guess that's what you mean by the term "medical ". The bottom line is that..Enlightenment is beyond words. Do not concern yourself with the words so much. Words are like signs along the road. some point in the right direction. Some do not. But in either case, you don’t want to get stuck somewhere, staring at the signs. Words are descriptive. enlightenment is experience. The second requirement for enlightenment is is knowing you can alter your consciousness. Knowing you can alter your state of mind. Knowing you can..reprogram yourself. Your ‘self.’ The first requirement is a dissatisfaction with your present state of ‘self.’ This you have shown by inquiring about ‘enlightenment.’ Your ‘self’ is really just the wetware program in your brain. It can be changed, dramatically and in important and desirable ways. So now it comes down to developing and practicing the techniques to do this. Also required. Though many desirable changes can be achieved without too much difficulty.