Vibroverse

Moderator
 View profile  See their activity

  • Content count

    1,738

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Vibroverse

  2. Posted · Edited by Vibroverse

    i would say god is morality itself, but ah, it is very hard when you try to put it into words, right? I would say that absolute morality exists, in a sense, but it cannot be something that is reasoned, it is something that is intuited, that is felt, in your core, so to speak, which then you try to put into words and give linguistic and mental form. But it is a process of moving towards it, in that way, because it can never be achieved, in a sense, for it will always come later, haha. 

     

  3. Posted

    41 minutes ago, Razard86 said:

    Right on cue!!! There we go.....now we have some drama!!!

    Umm you are the absolute...just zoomed into a particular perspective. And solipsism never says you as the personal self are the only thing...you are bringing in something that has never been said, not by me, or Leo, or anyone else that understands it. So notice...you are creating a conflict in your own mind, so that you can wage a war that was never presented.

    Solipsism says...YOU ARE EXPERIENCE. There is only one experience. When you go into deep sleep...notice your personal self isn't there and all experience is gone. So since you ARE EXPERIENCE, YOU ARE LIFE, that means YOU ARE DEATH, which means YOU ARE REALITY, which means YOU ARE ABSOLUTE. 

    You always had to be aware...to experience something. If you are not aware of experience...then there is no experience. So....that means...you are SINGULAR!!!! You can just manifest/appear infinite expressions. That is all. Try to escape this...you cannot. All you can do is say how do you know? And I will say you only KNOW EXPERIENCE and the lack thereof through deep sleep.

    Dude, solipsism has always meant that only one's personal mind is the only real thing that exists. So why do we need to take that term and claim that it means something else on this forum, instead of just using terms that already mean universal consciousness etc? I mean, why take a word that means a certain thing to most people in the history of philosophy, and try to assign a different meaning to it, while there already are concepts that mean that, like monistic idealism, etc. 

    By the way, i believe that the op clearly talked about it as to say that he is the only being who is having any experience, and those who are in gaza etc are not experiencing anything. I mean, look, i understand what you are trying to say, but you need to accept that we are on the relative level of being, and saying that you are the absolute is mostly just mental gymnastics. 

     

  4. Posted

    You as your personal self are not the only thing that exists, my personal self is as real as yours, on the experiential level. I hate these solipsistic talks, i just hate it, because it doesn't understand the subtleties of being. It sees that reality is a reflection of its mind, and then assumes that "oh, then i am the only thing that exists", but it is not like that. It kinda is like that on a far far deeper level of your psyche from the level of the absolute. But you are nowhere near that absolute understanding yet, so stop fooling yourself, really. 

     

  6. Posted · Edited by Vibroverse

    I think the very essence of the idea of spiral dynamics might be helpful in mapping reality, but it itself will also, necessarily, join the dialectical process where it negates itself by being one of the signs in the reality that it is mapping, as a map that is trying to map other maps in the process of the evolution of being, so to speak. And i think that also is one of the "aims" or acknowledgments of the metamodern thought anyways, an eternal process of self negation and "transcendence", so to speak. 

     

  7. Posted · Edited by Vibroverse

    @LastThursday what is meant by the perfect idea is the form of something that is the essence, it is what makes you able to know that there is such a thing as a dog. it is the perfect dog, so to speak, from which all the individual dogs are projected, and therefore it is beyond any sensual experiences. any dog that you see or imagine would be one of the modes of the idea of "the dog", in a sense. 

    let's think of it in terms of geometry, it might be easier to understand. for instance, when i say "triangle", you understand what i mean, but if you try to imagine or draw a triangle, it will always be one of the possible triangles. it will have its own unique size and angular structure. but you can never imagine or see the universal form of triangle itself. 

    so, in that sense, when we say perfect and imperfect, it is not necessarily something like an ethical judgment, like saying that one is superior to the other. it is just a purely conceptual explanation, to try to understand what makes something that thing, like what is it that makes you capable of seeing individually different forms and calling them a triangle or a dog. 

     

  8. Posted

    17 minutes ago, LastThursday said:

    So the letters are a map to the spoken word and then the spoken word is a map to images in my mind? Would the images in my mind be map also or not?

     

    Yes, yes and yes. You can think of the letters like chemical elements where if you combine 2 hydrogen and 1 oxygen atoms, what you get is an emergent phenomenon that is water. In a similar, but artificial this time, sense, when you being the letters, say, d, o and g together, what you get is a collective symbol, in a sense, of the animal that is being signified by the word "dog". And if you create a different combination, you can create the word "god", and so on. 

    These are all arbitrary significations, in a sense, where the word dog has actually nothing to do with that animal that it is signifying. That's why it has different names in different languages, and you can even think of it as different interpretations, and namings, of the same event, in a sense. But this would be a really long conversation, for now, to further expand on this. 

    Then, your question about if the image in your mind also is a map, the answer depends on your metaphysical assumptions. For instance, from a Platonic point of view, yes, the things you are perceiving here might be seen as flawed representations of perfect ideas that are timelessly and spacelessly, and transdentally, existent. Any dog that you see on the street, for instance, would be a flawed representation of the perfect idea of "dogness". 

     

  12. Posted · Edited by Vibroverse

    5 minutes ago, byte said:

    Don't know about the others but Tom Campbell doesn't have a PhD and worked in applied physics (risk modeling etc.) after his time at Robert Monroe's institute. So he should be considered more of an engineer than an (academic) researcher. His consciousness research was also in the private sector or by himself, rather than academic.

    https://encyclopedia.pub/entry/38522

    He has a phd in experimental nuclear physics according to this website, and i also remember him to be someone with a phd. 

     

  13. Posted

    Let's say i tell you "leo is eating pizza now", these words will create some image in your mind, but if you look at the sign "leo is eating pizza now" itself, you will see that there are nothing but letters that are organized in a certain way that creates a vision in your mind, but that organization of letters, within themselves, is not similar at all to what they are representing. 

    Language itself is a modelling of reality where we are using symbols to which we have assigned meanings, and through those symbols we evoke those meanings in our minds. So the statement "leo is eating pizza now" is a map of a territory. These are like codes that create an image in your mind, but the codes themselves are not the image that they are creating in your mind. 

     

  19. Posted · Edited by Vibroverse

    Yeah, i believe the substance is placebo, but the belief that it affects your neurochemistry and your experience, your perception of reality, is very deep rooted. It is like you might even say that what keeps you on the ground is your belief in gravity, but it is so deeply rooted that it is almost impossible for you transcend that. It is all consciousness, but consciousness has layers within layers within layers, in a sense.