AtheisticNonduality

Distinctions exist to divide things in half, two qualities or states or locations of reality. Collapsing the duality is showing a third term that exists in between as a gray area that goes against the dual notions/definitions. Or further still it could be a fourth term of Emptiness/Everythingness/Divinity that permeates all regardless of their relative relations.

@ZzzleepingBear Desire is a state where you want something, whether you want to get it in the first place or keep it or get deep into it. Of course this is connected with love and joy, but all three of these are not the same even if similar and right next to each other; the issue is finding out where one begins and the other ends. Joyful love or loving joy, however, is a way of collapsing the duality by showing the borders between them intermingle. In the deepest loves the loved is not an object but becomes one, wholly identical, with the subject.

Intelligence, infinite or finite or infinitesimal, structures all the way down and all the way up.

Jesus was crucified for a specific purpose. There is no reason to be biased toward desireless nihilism as opposed to desiring the purpose, in this case frameable in negative terms as avoiding collapse of civilization or in positive ones as moving toward a more ideal-based light.

I would say you can desire what you already have. Also a Void can love.

It's just the filtration process. If you saw all of reality you'd go insane, because the "seeing" system would be overrun and could not function sanely, meaning in a way conducive to biological forms or mental society normalcies of behavior for survival and creation of a certain timeline of structures; a lot of reality has to remain unseen to protect the observer. Parts of reality below you: all the atoms swimming around, the unfelt parts of the body, the gut microbiome, the subconscious, and processes that are separate and alienated even from what's normally signified by the word "subconscious" to refer to where dreams come from, hidden inner divinities at the lower levels. Parts of reality in you as your self: what is at your own conscious level, yet that lacks your awareness and works by veiled principles, what are inside your mind's level but unheard of and unseen, like the intellect's mechanisms as they are to explain where they themselves came from, which are like superstructures and foundations and mixings. Parts of reality that are above you: the bright white light, God, and the formlessnesses or structures that unite you to this God. And I'd argue this is all developmental. The lowest levels come first and the highest levels emerge last. Human history and the changing of structure mentally across time has to be to reach . . . But the bright white light is hidden in the lowest levels from the very beginning, because it's timeless and only its realization in structure is timed . . .

@Oeaohoo why your profile picture ?

Lol please edit this.

????

Intelligence is the most important thing about a person (maybe connected to their goodness, consciousness, love, beauty, or whatever else), though there are multiple types of intelligence, a certain complexity or beauty in every field.

I've only indirectly read Hegel, but I agree with his progressive ideals, yet am concerned about the inevitability of them, the freedom from contingencies mentioned. And then there was the pessimistically "non-progress-oriented" Schopenhauer who had a hate of a Hegel (so over-the-top in its ridiculousness you can tell there's genuine emotion put into it). You can take this however seriously you want to, but Schopenhauer quotes about Hegel: And:

Overall this aged well: some parts not really . . .

Maybe, then again there are anti-psychiatric psychiatrists like R.D. Laing.

Yeah, so you'll never be truly able to experience other people because you are only yourself. But from another standpoint, you really are already completed united with everyone else, that meaning your body and your mind able to dissolve barriers with the others if it is so chosen. As for other singularities/experiences, I am making the claim they exist, but they have to be in the same Nothingness. So two experiences united by the same Void, but they can't know each other because they are only parts without a whole.

@Holykael There is, of course, truth to the things you're saying, but also truth to the responses about you self-victimizing, creating your prison and chaining yourself with suffering because your mind is running wild. There may be some genuine insight to be found in the realm of suffering, of hell, that you've accessed. The first Noble Truth of Buddhism says, "All life is suffering." There is the fact you've attained knowledge of what it means to suffer, knowledge of the traits of suffering's existence, and perhaps you even look down on those that haven't suffered. And yet this hell is actively created by itself, by you! The solipsism issue is poorly understood. Even Leo himself was confident his experience was the only that existed, and then he released a video rambling on about Infinite Gods. I would argue God can create multiple real viewpoints the same way It makes different directions of space or directions of time as the moments pass. Up is not accessible to down, one thing on the left is different and can't access the things on the right, one thing a few seconds ago is different from right now, right now cannot remember a few seconds ago, etc. Multiple things, obviously in relative terms, can exist, though they emanate from the same unity. The problem of solipsism arises when people view their egos or experiences as eternal and then neglect all else, don't have access to the past and the future and the other people, or misidentify their egos with God, when God is both immanent in and completely transcends the separate self. As for the rest of the items on your list, yes, they are bad and "awfulness" and examples of the failures and darknesses and pains of the human species; you might even feel empathy for the collective suffering as the entire world or even all sentient beings as you claustrophobically become lost in a labyrinth of various tortures; but I would argue all the things on your list are things that could remain exactly as they are and have you still be emotionally free, have you tolerate or even accept them.

Also: "We see the world piece by piece, as the sun, the moon, the animal, the tree; but the whole, of which these are the shining parts, is the soul. And this deep power in which we exist and whose beatitude is accessible to us, is not only self-sufficing and perfect in every hour, but the act of seeing and the thing seen, the seer and the spectacle, the subject and the object, are one." "To speak truly, few adult persons can see nature. Most persons do not see the sun. At least they have a very superficial seeing. . . . Crossing a bare common, in snow puddles, at twilight, under a clouded sky, without having in my thoughts any occurrence of special good fortune, I have enjoyed a perfect exhilaration. I am glad to the brink of fear. Within these plantations of God, a decorum and sanctity reign, a perennial festival is dressed, and the guest sees not how he should tire of them in a thousand years. In the woods, we return to reason and faith. There I feel that nothing can befall me in life,---no disgrace, no calamity, which nature cannot repair. Standing on the bare ground,---my head bathed by the blithe air, and uplifted into infinite space,---all mean egotism vanishes. I become a transparent eyeball; I am nothing; I see all; the currents of Universal Being circulate through me; I am part or parcel of God." "Vast spaces of nature, the Atlantic Ocean, the South Sea; long intervals of time, years, centuries, are of no account." "To the senses and unrenewed understanding, belongs a sort of instinctive belief in the absolute existence of nature. In their view man and nature are indissolubly joined. Things are ultimates, and they never look beyond their sphere." "The presence of intuition mars this faith. The first effort of thought tends to relax this despotism of the senses which binds us to nature as if we were a part of it. Until this higher agency intervened, the animal eye sees, with wonderful accuracy, sharp outlines and colored surfaces. When the eye of intuition opens, to outline and surface are at once added grace and expression. These proceed from imagination and affection, and abate somewhat of the angular distinctions of objects. If the intuition be stimulated to more earnest vision, outlines of surfaces become transparent, and are no longer seen. . . . The best moments of life are these delicious awakenings of the higher powers, and the reverential withdrawing of nature before its God."

They're from the beginning of the Savitri, which is the longest known English poem written in the 20th century! I don't know how to reconcile Nothingness as both Infinite Blackness and Infinite Light, without bridging formlessness and form through something like an eternal recurrence. There's a poem by Charles Baudelaire called Châtiment de l'orgueil, the English translation as "Punishment for Pride":

We've already been over this. You lack awareness of Emptiness, hence your confusion that it's "black" when really it doesn't have any qualities, is the definition of unqualifiability itself, also why you can't deconstruct Everything to it. You lack awareness of Love, hence why you see it as a belief and not what reality is, a synonym of reality. Reality has levels below and above your sense. This is an operation from above, believe me. No, those are all labels you add afterwards. There are no boundaries "out there" because your sensorium is given to you in a single piece. It's your conceptions, not your perceptions, that are responsible for dividing up Everything.

@Oeaohoo Aurobindo (with many obscurity-light dualities):

That's what they are before you divide them into different qualities or objects, just the Void that is unified with all of them. It makes sense that once you deconstruct Everything, you are left with Nothing. But really they are the same.

@Someone here All the qualia of the present moment and the sights, sounds, smells, taste, touch are deconstructible into Love and Nothingness.

You're referencing Austin Osman Spare? Young Jung could be construed as casually racist (just because of the times he was in), referring to "the lower races" to describe people, like the Aborigines as an example. So when he later used "primitive man" it is actually a lot less offensive, and just pointing out a connection which is the difference between nonlinear mythic thinking you might get from tribal dance and modern rational thinking you'd get at a university. Whether or not this difference of consciousness applies cross-culturally to more importantly historical examples than those in Australia, we could of course point out that none of the pattern could be replicated exactly from place to place, but there has to be a simplicity to complexity or undifferentiation to differentiation somewhere along the lines, in lieu of the serpent and the Tree of Knowledge. I don't know what your proposed alternative to something like the Aboriginal-type analogies is. What is an individual supposed to make of this? It's a very bafflingly complex web of totems, sea of fetishes, and systemic world of sacrifices. Whatever's identifiable is difficult to deal with, and there's a lot that, still, is shadow. Hopefully you should be able to see that an approach like this would be entirely ineffectual. Nobody, literally or metaphorically, is going to in the ages of modernity or postmodernity circumambulate around darkness ritualistically when they are distracted, lured, pulled aside by the lights of various meanings and technologies. The esoteric will frequently become less dark and more illumined by the false lights, as nothing remains internal and everything is spread out to the exterior multitude, or otherwise the individual must, to survive and influence, anyway encounter the brightness of God, a Void, an Everything. The only reason Jesus was obscure was that he was dead, in Nothingness. But Nothingness is not dark: it's completely colorless, and luminously in positive terms upon touching Everythingness. Which is how transient Everything and intransient Nothing meet in psychological aspects.

Notice that your linguistic, philosophical, and psychological skills with logic are applicable to mathematics, because math is a language (like a network of meanings, although seemingly more quantitative than qualitative at times) related to truth (philosophy) and how the mind is organized (psychology can be viewed as a list of mechanisms and being-states mentality and emotionality go through, like computations with specific logical formulations). So there is obviously an undiscovered overlap here for you, since your logic in one area correlates with another, though this has yet to be applied. Start by thinking of how all of reality is, in a way, divisible into numbers. You have dualities (self and other, subject and object, inside and outside, here and there, up and down, rough and smooth) that make up everything, whether abstractly or concretely (abstraction vs. concretization is another duality). This makes reality into two parts, maybe ego and God or physical and immaterial or whatever else. Then there are not just dualities but also triplicities. There is not just the future and the past but the present moment that unites them both. There is not just up and down but right here at this point in space. There is not just black and white but also gray. There is not just day and night but morning/evening. But still you don't have to go into the gray zone of this triplicity of day-night; you could go deeper into one end like midnight or midday. These distinct places in space and time (like geometry and graphs) are all about location, meaning, quality, extension, and explainable in terms of numbers. Exploring numbers helps to explain the beauty of all of this. And so on ad infinitum. All of the shapes and physical patterns and quantities and differences and similarities come down to numerical expressions, and it's infinite because that is nature of reality, an infinity of perfection that holds all the basic ways of number under it, the forms of number and the formless divine God that is them. It all comes down to systems, like fluctuations and stabilities, as well as truths of metaphysics that go beyond all physical (or psychological) systems. Once you recognize the importance, the beauty, the usefulness of its logic, then your fear will become obsolete and go away on its own.

It seems his individualism was related to how crowds allow the shadow to run wild without self-examination. His anti-communist beliefs were definitely based on this. He had a unique understanding of the human mind-workings, so he saw himself above the others in a sense, which caused him to possibly denigrate collectivism. Of course his experience showed him how other people project their shadows to enemy crowds, while becoming complacent in the crowd they become subsumed in and which they assimilate all their contents to. The deceptions of the crowd become the obscurities of the shadow individually, so the only way for the individual to unravel itself is introspectively and not by becoming a victim of rabble-rousing and group ideologies. But then, none of that refutes the fact that gaining a view of reality with more scope, with a greater collection of information and perspectives, is more in line with the highest Truth. Of course this should integrate both individualistic freedom and self-definition as well as collective well-being concerns, though instinctually I'm biased toward being an individual, since I too don't like or find little in common with the world; yet the development, which I might characterize as upward into a luminous bliss and heavenliness, is important: it's found first in exceptional individuals, secondly it has to happen in the exterior world in the form of developments or even the defamed progress and all that's going on. The problem is that this has to occur in a complex rather than a simple grouping of structures. If we imagine God as a pure bright white light, a singularity, then of course that is infinitely, in a way, simple because of its unfathomably unified nature of its singular principle, but it's requiring of a structure in the human experiencer that is complex infinitely (simplicity is formlessness; complexity is the capability of that formlessness to embed itself in an infinite amount of forms spatially and temporally since it is, not restricted to a single form, compatible with them all in the rays of light that can rain down from a sunlike divinity). So "pure formless transcendence" or an escape from the dream is difficult. I've been exploring the dream-dreamlessness duality, where there's a world of infinite light and Everythingness and awake colors permeated by an eternal and permanent deep dreamlessness that both transcends and is unified with it. How would a society "organise around . . . God" if it's to be entirely transcendent, entirely dreamless. The shift from material to immaterial, with hoping that can be possible, will have to deal with the nature of deep dreamless sleep, possibly when technological focuses on consciousness delve into exploration of what is outside conventional grounds of ontology. Until then there has to be some dialectical phrasing, if in terms of complete materiality. It does in postmodern variants cause pathology if it claims the goal has already been reached, if it claims "the end of history" has already been made real, hence destroying the dialectical functionality, contradicting itself, and nullifying all sense. The eternal recurrence is the most worthwhile thing he ever detected in his walking sprees through nature, and it has something to do with how sunlight affects the earth, how leaves fall in motions that make too much sense, in how the sky is an abyss that can hold so much information under it, the Emptiness that is identical with the luminousness of the Everythingness, all motions and sunsets impermanent and fleeting and eternally permanent together in the unity/multiplicity.

Both definitions are self-containing and internally consistent. Both have uses. Drugs's position is more in line with compassionate freedom and development-driven ideals, whereas the other is the traditionally pre-established set of meanings that most people have been raised with. Society is moving from the latter to the former, which of course is going to cause strife and semantic issues, but "both have uses": one is about exulting the individual, allowing mental and bodily freedom, exploring an unrestrained human spirit/imagination/identity/soul / removal of socially constructed fetters, the other is about what meanings have already been laced into the mind and body since the beginnings of conditioning, the facts of practicality applied to how these terms are strictly defined, the status of holding together society with these normal limits based on essential biology. So both sides are right. But also both sides are wrong. Namely I think the "conservative" position of "all of it is gender dysphoria and a perverted and debilitating mental illness which frays the fabric of society and confuses children" and the "progressive" position of "all of it is reducible to society and fools infringing on the rights of humans that have a misalignment between their brain and outside body" are both flawed. I don't think freedom when it comes to the mind and body is an illness, and yet I don't believe "a woman's brain and a male's body" is verifiable/empirical at all. You can deal with this information now however you want. For now . . . I won't inundate you with my personal viewpoint.