Vibroverse

Helena Blavatsky.

Reminds me of Bashar, in a sense.

I don't know if rationalism and empiricism actually are two different things, or they actually are the two sides of the same coin. Because even the most hardcore empiricist creates the concept of empiricism which you cannot find in your mere observations of reality. Nowhere in nature you can find the argument that knowledge can only be gained empirically, so you need to be able to have that capacity of conceptualization first in order to come up with those concepts that you come up with. And another question is, how do we create a true distinction between the objects of the mind and the objects of the world to know which one came first? How are we even able to differentiate thinking and being from each other? How do we even tell the difference between our mental processes and the physical processes, with a clearcut distinction? So, I think, the best we can do is approach these ideas with a pragmatic perspective, because you cannot even distinguish, at the ontological level, reality from thought. What is the exact line of distinction between reality and thought?

@Someone here try psychedelics if you can, and also deep meditations and contemplations. if you cannot try psychedelics for some reason, it's okay, continue with deep meditations and contemplations, and the psychedelics will find you someway somehow, if you truly need them.

Is the manifestation of the idea of A not being equal to A.

@Wilhelm44 yes, A is infinite within itself, and therefore it includes its finiteness also within itself, for its infiniteness also contains, and is, its finiteness.

@Wilhelm44 yes, and I'm saying that it's the level of "illogicality", and by definition it is "illogical", and therefore it is the point where language cannot touch for it can only talk about that which can be represented in a way that can be perceived as "something" in our minds.

What I'm saying is deeper than that, A in the same point in time and space is not equal to A, but that probably is a very darn deep dimension of being that it is almost completely irrelevant and meaningless from where we are. Zeno and Parmenides, in my opinion, might be some of the rare ones in the history of philosophy who got this idea.

@Someone here You can achieve omniscience.

@Someone here what is it that you're really trying to understand?

That's the point where I imagine to be a difference between me and God, even though it, of course, is not an ontological, a substantial, difference, and give God the role of a guide, guiding me away from my stupidity, in a sense, in a way that makes sense to me.

Yeah, you're so good at playing it that you've lost the awareness that you're playing it. And yes, you also are so infinitely intelligent that you can use that infinite intelligence of yours to experience infinite dumbness. And yes, us experiencing being human seems to be a part of that "project" somehow ?

You're right, that's why you're playing the game of not being omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent. That would give you an infinite nervous breakdown.

I'm not asking anything, I'm just saying that there is a level of being where A is not equal to A. And you can understand what omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence means if you can understand "that".

You can reach total omniscience, about each and every atom and thing that exists, if you are that from which everything "emanates", but consciousness, in the form of being an individual human, probably would not be able to grasp all of that information, so a filtering is happening to make you that which is you as the individual human.

Are you sure that the dream Leo and the "real" Leo are two different beings, other than you believing and imagining them to be two different beings?

Leo's most original idea is his idea of being Leo.

Discovering, creating, new "things", and talking about them.

It depends on where you are. I think philosophy, or any other human endeavor, has any intrinsic value in and of itself, so, in that sense, I have a very pragmatist perspective. If studying philosophy gives you the experience of depth that you're searching for, then yes, you can study it. But I think, ultimately, nothing can give you that fulfilment that you're looking for other than yourself.

I think it might have a mechanism which, perhaps, does not exist at the absolute level, but is pretty functional at the relative level.

I think AI can be conscious at some point, but it is not conscious yet. It can gain consciousness at some point that it can think and feel the way we do, but it clearly does not have that level of consciousness yet.

Nietzsche, in my opinion, can be pretty helpful up until a point, in helping you understand that every belief that you and your culture have actually is groundless, but after that, yes, he usually may be seen as someone who is constantly just ranting about stuff. I think he got so lost in that project of his that he got lost in that perspective of his, and became the depressed and mentally unstable person that he is, and I can understand how, we all get lost in that mode sometimes. But of course he had very brilliant ideas and, you may say, discoveries about how the western civilization is created that he can help you in learning how to decipher bullshit and question your assumptions about reality and ethics, and so forth. But the important thing, in my opinion, is doing that without losing your groundedness, otherwise you can end up in an asylum as he did. But he obviously is, at the same time, a brilliant philosopher from whom you can learn a lot, but it, again, also depends on your level of wisdom or understanding about the nature of reality, otherwise you can get so immersed in that idea of Nietzsche that may turn you into someone who is all about pointing to what is wrong, and then it may be your only level of perception of reality. If you, however, can see the world through a healthily critical lens, then you may become aware of the problems, but you, then, would not get lost in becoming someone who is only about pointing to the problems, but, by understanding the nature of reality, you would learn about how to take the bounce from the awareness of the problem and move towards a perspective of solution more easily. I mean, in my opinion, Nietzsche understood the truth, and his idea of ubermensch, in my opinion, is a representation of that, but, yes, he was aware of that possibility of absolute freedom, but he did not know how to get there, because, as I said, his filter of consciousness was so involved in the problems that his awareness of the solutions, in a sense, became invisible, or deeply hidden, to him.

Everything that you are saying about what Nietzsche was saying and believing here is just one interpretation, and you can read Nietzsche in a completely different way also. And, by the way, don't forget that you are Nietzsche, and you are the writer of his books, that it is your consciousness, but don't get freaked out about this also, because you are a being with infinite levels of being. So, it is your state of being while you're reading it that matters, more than what you believe Nietzsche "actually" is talking about, in my humble opinion, because it is something that is being "emanated" by the level of intelligence of wisdom that you yourself are able to perceive and "understand".