Vibroverse

Yeah, it can help you get into a meditative, or even a sort of a mild ish psychedelic state.

I read many of Osho's books and that's how I know that he was sensing, in a sense, the meaning behind the word and responding to what is meant, or to his own idea about what is being meant, because you can hear many contradictions in Osho, and he himself also is aware of that and accepts that, and he says it is because truth cannot be confined by logic, that it is something dynamic when it is projected into conceptual frames that try to carry the meanings.

The Will to Power.

Well, if you want a deep dive into the idea of power, I can recommend that you check philosophers like Schopenhauer, Nietzsche and Foucault, these guys were really interested in what power means and what are the reaches of it, but won't let them depress you even further.

@Someone here You can like this.

Mindfuck ?

If I tell you that "yesterday I wore a while tshirt that was not white that had an image of a square circle on it", I'm, in a sense, making an assertion, telling you something about myself ? Now, of course, you may tell me that what I'm telling you about myself is that I'm probably crazy, but a statement is a statement, it feels to me like on "some" level, or on "no" level, but if we say something actually is nothing at the ultimate level, then I'm, in a sense, telling that to you on "some" level that also is, ahahah, "no" level.

Whoever, or whatever, it is, it says that yes. There, in a sense, is some being, or beings, who say that. But then it, in a sense, is in the point where it, in a sense, loses its meaning where you can, in a sense, say such things without freaking out for you, in a sense, are in a mode of not freaking out, if you know what I mean ?

Then we may also say that, at one level of being, there only is the one awareness, one existence, that is I am, that is not in space and time, therefore it is becoming the reality that it is perceiving in the moment, it is becoming the idea of a history of being that it is perceiving. For instance, when I am is reading a book, it is then, at that level of thinking, not reading something from the past, from an idea of being historical, but it is becoming the words and beingness of that book, for it is it. And then it becomes time and historicity, and assigns that quality to it to perceive itself in the ideal form of itself as much as it can, without losing the idea of a relevance of it being itself in the modus, in a sense, that it is.

This sentence is a lie. So if this sentence is a lie, then it is not a lie, and if it is not a lie, then it is a lie, then it is not a lie, then it is a lie, then it is not a lie, ad infinitum. Welcome to the Matrix, Leo, do you think that which you are smelling is air, do you think that which you are thinking is thought? But then, look at existence itself. It is nothing, therefore it is something, therefore it is nothing, therefore it is something. But then what do we do with it? What do we do with language and thought and reality? What do we do with understanding? It is like existence has its borders to keep you in it, for you to experience, maybe, a certain modus of logic, and touching its own boundaries like building the Babel Tower to reach God, but God says "fuck off, you're not ready for a shit like this yet for this is the point where existence becomes a loop unto itself". "It is only through understanding logic in a grounded and 'logical' way you can understand what logic itself is, so fuck off and ground yourself in Me first, before trying to figure out the self existence modus of Me". I sometimes ask whether I can become a person in a different country coming from a different past, a different timeline where I'm totally someone else, like a woman from another country maybe, in the next second, and shit like that, you see. And I think God says "you fuckin idiot, you are, again doing the same frickin shit thinking that you are doing something else, so fuck off and understand the modus of being that you are experiencing where you are first, and then, maybe, I can give you some hints about what you really fuckin wanna understand". "The only thing you gotta do is surrender to the inner silence, to the inner peace, and let Me, more and more, be through your mind and body, let Me take you over, more and more, instead of your human mind who just doesn't know shit, nada, nothing" ?.

I think he is talking about the idea of God which many people believe God to be. He sometimes might say God exists, and he sometimes might say God does not exist, because what he means by the word "God" changes depending on the context. And doesn't Osho always say "don't listen to my words, listen to the silence between my words, that's where my true speech is", so listen for the silence from which he is speaking, don't get stuck on the words.

Well, then you may say "God can create a square circle, but you can never see it". This is not a satisfying answer but, yeah, it is like the best answer that we can come up with for now. And nowadays I'm discovering this idea about this question and every other question and problem that I have, and that is: "what I'm searching for is the satisfying answers and solutions to all my questions and problems, and so, if I take the shortcut and directly go for the feeling of satisfaction in and of itself, then isn't it kinda logical that the thoughts and understandings I will receive will be of the nature of that which is satisfying to me, in other words, won't I be in the state of thinking and experiencing and, maybe, in a sense, creating that which is satisfying regarding all aspects of my life for the basis from which I'm being is that of satisfaction", if you know what I mean. It kinda makes sense to me when I'm thinking about my observations about how reality does work.

The closest we've got to this understanding is by the quantum physics, I guess, as I said before, where we are talking about a frickin cat that is both dead and alive at the same time, where something is itself and not itself at the same time, but when we try to capture how it does this, when we measure it, we cannot see how it does that. Now I'm not talking about whether consciousness is collapsing the wavefunction etc, it's not my point. Whatever it is that collapses the wavefunction, the situation is the same, we cannot see the particle in the state where it both is and is not. And I think it might be happening because that's the point which our perception cannot comprehend and perceive even if it might be existing in some weird "dimension". We cannot perceive the wavefunction in itself, but we perceive the possibility of it where it either is or isn't, we cannot see the state where it is both if it exists, and yeah, in some weird sense it might exist, but it wouldn't mean anything for us, I guess. I think that itself is a pretty strong point in explaining the importance of consciousness in the equation, because surprise surprise, we, for some weird reason, cannot see the state of the equation where it cannot click to our perceptual capacities, but it's a whole another subject. And turning back to your question, I think there is nothing consciousness cannot become, including the "things" that are logically impossible for us, for things are the concepts which we perceive through our perceptual capacities, and perception might be the definition of itself, in a sense, if you know what I mean. So if existence is itself, coming from and causing itself, in a sense, then, yeah, that perspective might hold, but again, the interesting thing here, I guess, is the nature of thought and imagination, the importance of the idea of state of being in the equation, and, I guess, that's a very important point, a very very important point, in a sense, which is being, for some reason, ignored by logicians and philosophers. The ancient philosophers and idealist philosophers, of course, to some extent, understand the importance of intuition, or the underlying state of being, in creating their philosophies, by talking about the importance of love and tranquility etc to some extent, but I think we need a way of philosophizing which defines itself as a combination, in a sense, of heart and mind, of intuition and reason, for it to work well. But, of course, that also is a fine line that can totally lose reason and, in a sense, turn into woo woo, but philosophy without being based on a true state of intelligence also is dry and repetitive and not insightful. And, by the way, whether we are aware of it or not, it already is how it is, in my opinion, but if we may become conscious about it, it may be helpful.

Okay, let's approach this question in a different way because there obviously are many underlying assumptions going on within consciousness. First of all, perhaps, we need to start with understanding what definitions are, and we are trying to say a definition can be other than itself at the same time, right? So, if the definition is other than itself, then by definition it is not itself. And if the essence of a meaning and concept is by definition itself and also a representative of itself, and that actually is what I mean when I say noumena, then it definitely can experience itself in the modes of impossibilities also, but of course, our question is whether those impossibilities are the same mode of impossibilities or not, mhm. For instance, when we say "oh it is not possible for me to date that woman" and "it is not possible for me to create a square circle", are we actually, from the metaphysical level, talking about the same sort of a thing or not. One of the differences seems to be that you can imagine dating that girl in your mind, but you cannot even imagine a square circle in your mind. But then the question is "then can it be about understanding the nature of what we can imagine and what we cannot?". Is there a deeper mechanism, in a sense, that applies to all forms of imagination in their own respective modalities, or is there objects that are just impossible to imagine by their own nature in themselves, and now that's a good question to ask. Then we can talk about the nature of logic, and that's the weird point, because you then get stuck in a question of possibilities where whether it is ever possible or not, where you're asking to yourself whether it is ever a real point that can exist within itself or not, or whether it is like, in a sense, the limit of existence, like, the boundary, in a sense, of existence where it can allow itself to experience itself. However, when you get to the point where experience is experiencing the limit of itself, then you have some weird problems, and then the question is whether it is the question itself that is the question, or whether it can be a subset of a greater existential question where it is, for some reason, a weird part of itself, and maybe, in that sense, what we are searching for is the understanding of the very understanding of the structure.

When we look at the quantum realm, we see things like that, for instance we can be talking about, in the Copenhagen Interpretation, a cat that is both dead and alive at the same time. Now it is quite a logical impossibility, but in that interpretation, like the idea of Kant about what he calls the noumena, there is a dimension of reality where a logical impossibility, a man both standing and sitting at the same time, for instance, can exist. That interpretation of quantum mechanics is pretty Kantian, in the sense that we can have no idea about the noumena for it might very well be beyond our human comprehension and perception, and so we are dealing with the phenomena that are within the realm of our comprehension and perception. Now it is pretty mindfuck beyond description when you think about it, because putting some limits to the infiniteness of infinity seems pretty random, in a sense, but at the same time there is something like a perceptual capacity of ours and the mode of being of ours. I feel like it is like the point where to parallel lines touch each other in the infinity, but it both exists and can never exist at the same time, so it might be like the ground of existence that can never find itself, in a sense, and it is like the point where the logic is looking for itself, and it is quite a mindfuck, yeah ?

You are creating yourself anew in every moment. Your world, your timeline, your family, how you were born, it is all being created in the moment. Let's say you are a French guy, two minutes later you can become a Chinese guy, in a mode of being where you have always been that Chinese guy. You can begin to remember your childhood as that Chinese kid, remembering your memories in the elementary school in Beijing etc. Your memories and timeline and world are all imagination in that sense. You are a self creating being. And as Chuang Tzu asked, how do you know you are not a butterfly dreaming to be the human you while you actually are sleeping in another "dimension" as that butterfly, how do you?

Descartes of course was aware that if his thoughts stopped, he would still be existing. When he said I think therefore I am, he didn't point to the fact that he was thinking, he pointed out to the fact that he was the one who was thinking, and so the emphasis is not on thinking, the emphasis is on him being the one who is thinking and therefore he is. He was aware at that point that he cannot be trusting even his own thinking, he says that all his thinkings might be wrong, except the fact that thinking was happening.

I watched the movie and I didn't like it really, it was like very amateur and kinda meaningless, even though I'm pretty interested in the ideas of parallel realities and time etc, but everyone says it is a great movie. Maybe I was not in a good state of consciousness when I watched it, so I may give it another try, maybe.

The only thing it lacks, like all other western movies, is the understanding of the important of consciousness in the process.

I think the best one I can think of is Abraham Hicks. It is easy to brush it off saying it is just so fluffy or something like that, but I think it is an information coming from a pretty deep level of existence.

I think you have a very narrow understanding of what law of attraction actually means.

And I don't understand how someone can say that they are God and universe is consciousness, but then they say that they don't believe in law of attraction, wtf, it is the same frickin thing. But of course, if what they mean by law of attraction is the idea that you just need to think positive thoughts and what you want will happen, it is not that simple. You need to change your state, your deeper belief structures, because, for everything is consciousness, every moment is reflecting your state of being to you, whether you're aware of it or not.

Law of attraction is more powerful than the frickin gravity, but most people don't get it because they believe that it is something woowoo etc, and that's why the frickin law of attraction proves to them that it is woowoo, that's how fucked up the law of attraction is. Existence is so fuckin ordered and you are so fuckin God that if you believe that you are not God and law of attraction is not real etc, then you will prove to yourself that you are not God and law of attraction is just not real and everything is random. Think of law of attraction as the mechanism of your consciousness, the physics of how your consciousness works, understand what law of attraction really is from the true masters and then you may understand.

I like the ocean and wave analogy. A wave is nothing but the ocean, but at the same time it is not the ocean, so I sometimes am the totally of God, and sometimes a part of it, depending on my mood, in a sense.

Yes, both absolute and relative are absolute on the absolute level. All is the same one, in a sense, and so It, in a sense is a- or meta-logical, if it makes any sense at all to you, which It cannot because It is that which cannot make sense at that level, and so It needs to slow itself down to build a conceptual understanding of Itself, or at least being on the way towards Itself, in that sense, if you know what I mean.