Vibroverse

Member
  • Content count

    1,258
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Vibroverse

  1. I'm thinking about what the things are made of, and the best answer that I can find is consciousness, or nothing. In my opinion, consciousness and nothing are the same thing, and things, in my experience, if I'm gonna be honest about it, seem to be created in the moment. It's like I'm all the information and things in the world, and also like, I'm the only consciousness that exists, that reality is a dream and what I am is the nothingness that morphs myself into objects and ideas and structures and all the other minds, in the moment. But it also is like, as my title says, it is all about happiness, for happiness tells me whether I'm creating a dream that I like or not. Because if I'm imagining and creating in "every" moment, by my nature as the creator, then happiness works like a compass telling me what I'm creating. The better I feel the better I'm creating in the "direction" that I want, and if thoughts, and "me myself" also are my creations, then the better I feel the better I'm creating as, in a sense, "the void" that is morphing into itself. My emotion in the moment is telling me what I'm in the mode of creating and becoming in the mode of thought and "reality", and my perception of the moment, therefore, is being reflected by my level of happiness, in a sense, in the now. I'm feeling like I'm the infinitely intelligent, in all ways, "void" that is itself, and that thought, perhaps, in a sense, is the self building principle that moves itself towards itself like walking on a ladder, and that, in that sense, is the mode. I'm feeling like "I" within itself is the eternal mystery that cannot help but refer to itself for it is that which is existence, and it morphs itself into thoughts, or into, perhaps, "thinkingness", that builds it as that which is existence. When "I" make this mode of being the mode of being that is "me", then the experience is the experience of being, and the experience of being becomes, like what is happening here, words and sentences and meanings, and so on. Then consciousness, in the modality that it is, perceives what it "has been" as what it is, and the experience of time and relativity comes into being, and at that point, I feel the need to postulate something which I may call God, or Logos, that, in a sense, "orchestrates" being. That might be a runaway solution to run away from absolute solipsism, perhaps, but I, to be honest, am so frickin afraid of absolute solipsism, so I, out of my fear, infer the existence of other minds, even though they are "myself". That then creates infinite complexities, yeah, but if we assume a mystical substance of being, a substance that is itself, like void or emptiness or nothingness, then being "experientially" refers to it, and "be's" that which is itself. That, perhaps, in a sense, is what solipsism, in its truest meaning, is anyways, because being even becomes "solipsistic", in a sense, about "itself", and understanding, in its beingness, becomes that which is itself. Because even if existence is perception, and perception is being, or that which is referring to itself, how will you explain the experience of experience? I mean, how will you find the beingness of being as that which is itself? I mean, if being is that which is being itself, then what is it that makes it itself other than that which is not itself? I mean, what is the mode of existence, in that sense, that makes it what it is, as it is that which is existence as the mode that we call "existence"? I mean, how do we find the mode of being that is being, and what is it that we compare it to when we do that, and what is the existence of the very "comparability" itself? What is it that makes it that which is the being that it is, when being is that which it is as "existence"? What is it that makes "x", for instance, meaningful and building itself in the mode of being that it is that it "introduces", in that sense, to itself? What is it that finds itself, for instance, in the form of a memory, and the "extension", in a sense, of the memory? What is it that is self that "knows" itself, and, in a sense, the limits of itself that makes it itself instead of making it that which is not itself? What is the limit, and the "beingness" of the limit that perceives itself as time and space, and also as that which is not time and space, to limit itself as itself? That's a weird thing for it is the limitation of being that makes itself, and, in that way, it perceives in itself the "merging", in a sense, of free will and that which is not free will, as the categories and concepts, in a sense, of being. That's, then, perhaps, the analysis that "dissolves" itself as that which is to give birth, in a sense, to that which it is that "not yet" is that which is, and that, perhaps, is the analysis of analysis that puts language, and structure, itself into question. Yet, the paradox, then, is, it is that which is itself that puts itself into question by being that which is. And language when it "turns" to itself, discovers itself as that which is in the mode of being that which is not. I mean, it becomes the reference of itself where the reference is about the reference to itself, and it becomes, oozes, in a sense, into that which is, that is that which it is referring to, and it, again, "dissolves" within itself by being itself. I mean, by being that which it is, it begins to find that it actually is that which it is not, and by being that which it is, it, also, becomes the becoming of that which it is not, and it again, as we talked about it in the beginning, becomes the mode of being the "ladder". I mean, that probably is the union of the modality of being as that which is, the perception of that which is, and the interchangeability that is that which is. And, then, when that which is that which is finds itself as that which is that which is, then that which is becomes the modality. This is the crucial point for it is the being of "not" being, and it is the knowledge that we refer to when we refer to being as that which is "being" that which is, and science, in that sense, becomes the limits that defines the modality of being as that which "becomes" the modality.
  2. True, but if you look at it, all those images in your mind about what time is also are appearing in the now, so time is not even a circle, but it is a point, and it is not even a point, it just is what now is.
  3. Because even when you're trying to find the beginning, you're here and now, referring to "something" here and now as the beginning, but you are the one that is here and now that is referring to that "something".
  4. He actually is not a word salad, his teaching is pretty deep, and yeah, you're right, you don't need to, directly, try to read, like, the Phenomenology of Spirit. I'd recommend that you can first start with some readers about him created by other philosophers, so that you can, more and more, become familiar with him. His words look like a word salad, but when you begin to make sense of it, it turns into a very delicious salad, in the process. Hmm, if we asked him about how existence came about, he, probably, would take a glance at you, at first, and ask you "why do you think existence needs to come into being, why do you think existence cannot be existing always, because if existence did not exist, then it itself would, also, be a paradox in itself, for nothing itself would also be something that is".
  5. https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://andphilosophy.com/2022/06/14/doctor-strange-and-professor-hegel-in-the-multiverse-of-madness/&ved=2ahUKEwiUsrj4_7z6AhWcRvEDHUxRCNkQFnoECAQQAQ&usg=AOvVaw1-fTi_squF-X-931pX1Bzw
  6. I agree with what you say, but what I'm saying is philosophy has just become one of the formal discourses in the process of answering such questions and issues. If what you mean by philosophy is deep and grounded thinking whose purpose is to help us solve our problems, then, of course, I agree with you.
  7. may also just be total bullshit like religions and woo woo spiritualities, mind fantasizing stuff and getting lost in its modellings.
  8. @Adamq8 @Carl-Richard I've lost sense of what philosophy even is talking about. I mean, it is like it is not philosophizing that matters, but it is, like, under the domination of a certain mode of language and conceptualization that what has become important in philosophizing has stopped being about what it is even talking about, and it has become, like, an abstract language that refers to, and talks about, its own concepts. I mean, what matters in philosophy, in my opinion, is the meanings those concepts are referring to, not the concepts in themselves, but to me it feels like philosophy has long left meaning behind, and has become a process of referring to the concepts within concepts within concepts. I mean, what is the purpose of philosophy anyways, if it is not helping you in becoming your true self, but instead becoming a never ending analysis of something that just is? What is the purpose of it if it is not helping one to attain peace in their lives, but is just being a conceptual loop that gets lost in itself? Why should I, then, care about that mode of "knowing" instead of a mode of knowing that "means" something to me, that helps me attain peace and beauty in my life? Why should I become, in a sense, a part of that "industry" instead of following my own heart and peace and intuition that really says something to me? Why that game, or any other game, really, should be seen as the top game that is "the only representative" of the "highest knowledge"? Why should I be attached to anyone, or anything, or any modality of being, in that sense, just for the sake of finding balance with their language and game that is just another form of existence? Why should I be a member of a certain group of a mode of thinking, including the "philosophical" thinking? That's because they've convinced me that their fucked up game, that is just a self referential loop, without even being aware of it, is the highest game in town. But when you truly analyze it, and truly look at it, you cannot find anything but just being in it that just is being itself, as any other forms and modes of being. That's just a system that criticizes the system, but it itself becomes another system. That's the, in my opinion, the hidden oppression factor in any system of thinking that defines itself as the way, and becomes its own authority by othering all the others who don't obey that authority. And the world of philosophy, as I see, is not any different than that, really. That's, in a sense, a system that defines itself to be critical of itself and free, but it is not how it is in practice. Both science and philosophy, and every other system of "knowing", in that sense, has become a dogmatic system in itself, and is not open to different ideas at all, really. It is because, for them, it is their mode of being and "knowing" that matters, not a geniune desire to understand more and help each other expand our consciousness. It has become something that has enclosed itself in a certain mode of thinking and perception.
  9. Thinking about this, what would happen if I was in a state of constant awareness of my breathing, like 24/7.
  10. I think the best philosophy might be the "extremes" the postmodern philosophy that thinks of philosophy as another sets of stories, not more real or "valid" than the stories of the Greek Mythology.
  11. It doesn't matter whose breath it is really, or whether it is noone's breath, what I'm talking about what would happen, would be body and mind still be doing what they are doing without needing "me"?
  12. I'd add Hume and Spinoza to this list, also. It'd help you greatly in understanding what Kant, and the philosophers from him onwards, are actually talking about. And you can start with reading Hume and Descartes, because their language is easy to understand, compared to guys like Hegel, Heidegger and Kant. Starting with them, trying to understand them, might make you feel like wtf are they even saying.
  13. I'd recommend that you first think and study deeply about what philosophy itself is that you want to study. Understand what it means to philosophize about something, what it means to think philosophically, before getting into the infinite realm of the models of philosophy.
  14. If you think of existence as that which is itself, as that which creates itself by being itself, then there can be a universe that destroys all universes including ours, but, again, when you think of it as that which is itself, then it, again, can reform itself, for it is "nothing" from which it is made. I mean, maybe that destruction of all universes already happened two minutes ago, but nothingness, out of nothing that it is, reformed itself as this universe and the sense of an unbroken continuity where it is just another normal day where I'm writing this to you.
  15. Yeah, I find Heidegger's approach pretty honest, and meditative, and he said that Zen Buddhism has already said everything he wanted to say. I find his approach of perceiving reality as it is without going for metaphysical grand narrarives to be very innovative in the western philosophical tradition.
  16. Rationalist epistemology claims, basically, that the main source of knowledge is reasoning. However, how much do they think we can know by thinking, by merely using mind, alone, without needing to refer to empirical attempts? I mean, for instance, do they claim that they can know what I ate last week at lunch, or do they simply refer to being able to know "grand knowledges" through the mind alone, like whether God exists or not, etc? I mean, it is like there is a wide variety in the rangings of the rationalists, but, for instance, do Leibniz and Spinoza believe that we can know EVERYTHING through thinking alone? I'll be happy if some someone knows the answer to this question.
  17. I think we can see the embodiedness of the being in the world in Spinoza, to some extent, and in Hegel, also. I think, especially Hegel, took a great step in that, and criticized Kant for abstracting the subject from the world by all his categories and ideas, and said that we need to be perceiving ourselves in and as the world, seeing being as one consciousness that is being, and becoming, itself. I mean, he said that we cannot distinguish being as phenomena and noumena for we do not even know whether such a thing as noumena exist or not, and he thought that there is no such thing as an atemporal mind, that mind is a historical thing, that human is knowing itself in the process, and in fact he, I think, was the first one who used the term "dasein" to emphasize the being-in-the-fenomenal-realmness. And, of course, this is a deep discussion for now where we should also discuss about Kant and Heidegger, and these guys, in more depth, so I don't wanna get lost in this now. But to turn back to main question, I'm thinking of it like this: for instance, let's take Spinoza and his rationalism. I think, at the ultimate sense, if we think of Reason, Nature and God as the same "thing", then, I think, we can say that everything can be known by Reason alone, then. Mind, then, would be one with God, at the ultimate level, and so mind would be able to find every answer of every question without needing to take any empirical steps, in theory. I think Leibniz says something like this also, but then he also says that we humans are all, pretty much, empiricists when we come to the practical level of being, in gathering knowledges. The thing, then, I guess, is rationalists like Spinoza and Leibniz, perhaps, would agree that every knowledge can be gained through reasoning and thinking alone, for mind exists by its "being-informed-ness" by God at its core, and God knows everything that can be known, but we, being humans that we are in the certain modes of being that we are, need empirical data and analysis, also, for, perhaps, out of habit.
  18. Maybe it is such a deep belief that it is the nature of reality. The nature of reality that, in a sense, is itself on an "infinitely" deep level. But is it, in that sense, a "thing" in itself, or is it a perception that is itself, hmm?
  19. Well, I think the thing with me is, first I wanna find my grounding on the practical level, solving my practical level questions about my individual life, and then I wanna dive into the world of philosophy with a clear mind and beingness.
  20. Allowing yourself to receive help from thinking, instead of making thinking, like, a conceptual trap in itself.
  21. Yeah, you're right. Well, sorry, I think there have been great thinkers in western philosophy when I'm thinking with a clear mind, but it can seem to be complicated when you look at it with an unclear mind, I guess, as you said, in a sense, like everything else. You know, then, yeah, I myself am also a part of the cosmic stupidity. But yeah, I feel mad at those guys when I'm in an angry mode, I guess, and it is not really about them, but it is about my perception of them, at least to a great extent, really.
  22. But, in general, philosophy seems to be another form of stupidity like all other human endeavors and thinkings.
  23. I love you, me, but I hope you understand why I'm fuckin freaking out 😂 Maybe it's just because I'm a fuckin idiot, or fuckin got lost in my mind, trying to "understand" the shit with my mind.