Anton Rogachevski

I was really interested in what kind of truth you are talking about and the kind you are really interested in.

Basically nothing can obscure experience within itself because the substance of belief is also experience. -- You are positing some very interesting questions but at points they seem to digress from the topic. Some of the new and interesting topics you raised like "constructivism" I'm simply not familiar with yet. Sure if you chose to paraphrase it would be nice to cite the original so I could know exactly the point I was trying to make. It just seems you "saw" in my points something that wasn't originally meant. I really appreciate your answers and most of all your interest in this! So thank you dear friend.

I'm not as optimistic about it ever bringing me closer to what's actually real. The most it can do is to get to the deepest layer of the substance of experience. But you won't get an explanation of what it is and what's it is made from, but rather you become pure experience and you can just be it. (Spoiler alert you already are it - pure experience) In that sense maybe "Being" is somewhat correct.

Are simply the grammar of how the mind works, they are not tools of truth, but of practicality and survival.

If by reality you mean the noumena then beliefs are the best you can wish for. If we talk about Truth as Phenomenological Truth, then all concepts are pure hallucination, because raw unfiltered experience is completely empty - so any attempt whatsoever to think about it will be wrong the moment you start thinking about it. I think you may have misunderstood. It's hard to see what you are referring to in the original. I propose a duality between the unreachable by science (yet) experience, and the actual physical world which can be described by science in some sense. (also not complete ofcourse) What kind of truth are you talking about?

Why do you keep saying it's Ontological? In what sense?

Epistemology – How can we know anything? What does it mean to “know”? The brain has evolved to survive, not to access Ontological truth. It may or may not be able to actually derive truth about the external world, but we can’t know that for sure. How do you know you aren’t dreaming right now? If we are dreaming right now, then everything we think we’ve figured out – about truth, reality, physics, philosophy, even this theory – could be meaningful only within the dream, and meaningless outside it. This is a framework for understanding how knowledge arises within experience, one that avoids making claims about what really exists “out there.” Instead, it reflects critically on how experience produces the appearance of an external world and uses a probabilistic model to explain belief, perception, and sanity. It is grounded in what can be directly verified phenomenologically, while remaining skeptical of ontological conclusions.

How does he not see that his contemplation most likely had led to this, I don't think it's just spontaneous.

@UnbornTao I only heard it from Alex O'connor but i guess you can ask GPT for the source.

@UnbornTao Thomas Aquinas the world's most famous theologian has said the same about all his books after an experience.

Kill him! Yes when there's a powerful experience all the previous theories that sounded profound sound all like baby babbling.

Can we really? I think we can only be directly conscious of what's True without thinking about it. Thank you dear friend "Before Enlightenment carrying water and chopping wood" - We just love thinking about progress as humans

Defining the Key Terms Phenomenology Phenomenology is the study of experience as it appears, from the first-person perspective. It asks: What is it like to be here, right now? It suspends, or “brackets,” questions about whether what we experience corresponds to an external reality. Meta-Phenomenology Meta-phenomenology is the reflection on phenomenology itself - it observes how we observe, how we interpret our experiences, and how we make inferences about the world from within experience. Ontology Ontology is the philosophical study of what exists “out there,” independent of perception. This framework avoids ontological claims entirely - it neither affirms nor denies what ultimately exists, because such claims can’t be directly verified from within experience. Phenomenological Truth A phenomenological truth is something undeniable within experience itself, regardless of whether it corresponds to external reality. Seeing red is a phenomenological truth; knowing what “red” is in the world is not. Phenomenological Empiricism This theory rests on a simple but powerful principle: every claim must be directly verifiable within your own immediate experience. Don’t take my word for it - look carefully for yourself, observe your moment-to-moment experience, and see if what I’m saying holds true. The only true ground for this framework is what you can find firsthand. Descartes’ Demon Descartes’ famous thought experiment challenges the very reliability of our minds. He imagines an all-powerful, malicious demon capable of deceiving us about everything we perceive — not just in small ways, but entirely. What if all that we see, hear, and experience is nothing more than an elaborate illusion of the demon’s making, with no way for us to peer beyond it? In such a world, everything we “know” would be only what the demon allows us to know. Sanity Defining such a term in just a few words is difficult, but broadly speaking, sanity is the meta-belief that beliefs can track reality. We often say an insane person has “lost touch with reality” — so remaining in touch with reality, and perceiving it without serious distortion, carries deep epistemological importance. Sanity is something to value and protect, not to gamble with through reckless experimentation, as some spiritual seekers do with psychedelics.

Haha at least one person is excited It seems the total amount of the fucks given is one It's sad how this thread is the least popular on the forum, it seems we are all Spirituality junkies high on non dual mumbo jumbo. Do you see an value to the theory? Has it made you think about it? Changed your perspective on something?

What could be more meaningful?

Yes! I agree!

@UnbornTao The part about cooking sand and trying to make a delicious meal hits hard. Yep it seems the mind is not located but it's also everywhere. Correct me if I'm wrong as they are not so clear about that point. Why is he talking about himself in 3rd person and also calling himself "holy" or something?

@UnbornTao It's nice to know someone actually cares I tried to read once, and couldn't get through it. I'll give it another go. (I have trouble with attention and patience, sorry

Yes! It's so profound beyond any words. All I’ve said before is but the faint, flickering shimmer of a dying candle - dim beside the blazing light of all the suns in the universe. All words are empty shells that are so far from telling you what it really is that it's scary from this point of view. They may only spark some nice little imagination, but it's so Grand and so Profound, that it can only be experienced directly in order to understand. Thank you God! God is Love! Love is the way God sees everything. There's nothing to do but cry in pure ecstasy of Love and to just experience infinite gratitude. By the way, it's not through psychedelics. I am extremely sober. It does feel like MDMA x10 though. ------- Update: After some integration through the "normal" state. I can see that each state is a facet, a way in which experience can dance. It's True in the sense that experience may be like that, but it may also be in all the other states, including the normal and the low. They are all the Truth. I don't think that discriminating lower states because I can compare it to a higher one is wise. The best realization is to understand that I'm studying the nature of experience in all its shapes and forms and not to discriminate any one of them. God is not hidden but parts of it may be revealed through other states. When I say God, I also mean Experience or Consciousness. These are synonymous for me. The facet of Love specifically was revealed to me because I was in a very strong state of being in love with my girlfriend. So God is Love, but not only it. Love also revealed the Perfection aspect of God, because I saw experience in such a way that I wouldn't change anything about it, I saw how perfect it is. It's also revealing the Unity aspect, because I felt almost united with the whole of experience, and it was all shining with Love - It feels Divine and Pure in its nature. The secret I presume was the amazing ways in which our souls match and the deep mutual understanding and actually seeing each other while uniting in love. We made out for hours, but didn't sleep together, so I think that might be the way we generated this amazing Kundalini energy which caused this amazing state. The fact that she's reporting the same "spiritual" in nature sort of experience, and that she'd never had that kind of thing before kind of breaks my paradigm about the enclosed nature of experience. It may be connected somehow after all, maybe the awakening was mutual for us. That's pretty darn cool! After all she's God too, and finding her feels eternal like I've been missing her for eternity, missing myself my true nature. It's also Divine as it reveals the Angelic nature of humans seen through this lens. I saw it way back in my 200 microgram LSD trip where I realised that we are all like lucifer in a sense - fallen angels. We simply forget and we can't see our angelic nature, because divinity is not accessible in the normal state. So I'm saying something pretty radical. That a state of pure hate, or pure depression are also God. They are ways in which it can dance, and any such way must be therefore inherently Phenomenologically absolutely True. It wasn't a completely non-dual state as the ego was intact, but it felt so small and insignificant compared to the whole of me, Experience itself. Obviously it's not the end of the journey but only the beginning. I have much more to contemplate and integrate, and let's see hopefully my new relationship will reveal something even deeper in the months to come. Also I'm not gonna claim I'm enlightened, or that I know what you don't know. You know it, you are it. It's not hidden.

You'll have to elaborate on that one

@aurum @Recursoinominado @Breakingthewall @Leo Gura @UnbornTao Update: Ok, my current running theory is of a love feedback loop between two lovers - The intense feeling of in love is raising the state and one starts seeing the Divine in the other, he keeps showering the other with that Divine depiction, and the receiver of that love is also seeing the giver in the light of the Divine so he believes him totally! In this way a continuous feedback loop of pure Divine love is raising the state of both the lovers. Otherwise how would you explain my constant state that feels like MDMA x10 for a whole month?

Leo your latests episode one of your best ever. Congrats and thank you for your contribution!

I'll read as soon as possible! What about the fact the we both have experience in not Ultimately True?

@cetus You speak from experience? Have you been a jellyfish? How do you know it doesn't have a basic form of experience?