Anton Rogachevski

There is no "perception" nor a "perceiver" besides as concepts phenomenologically speaking just pure experience. ("Out there outside somewhere", maybe, but that's also a thought) It's hard to understand what is happening to you. It seems you don't want to get it. Do you by any chance think. "This can't be it, it must feel amazing and extraordinary, but this is just normal." How good are you at simply stopping thoughts? Can you reach a "no mind" state easily?

Yes a "rock" is Experience, everything is. You can't look anywhere without finding it. And it is you! You don't need to keep walking around in circles around it, it's accessible to you here and now. There's no process Phenomenologically speaking. The "process" is a story.

It's inference. Try to see when you infer things and when you actually look.

When in "time" will you know? In the "future"? This obsession with breakthroughs is not healthy in my opinion and misses the point. I'm not saying it's not gonna be cool. There are cool ways in which experience may dance, but everything is already in front you right now, staring you in the face, as you stare in it's face. There's nothing but You to find within an infinite You. You are it, being, experience, everything forever and ever.

Wow thank you friend, To even be compared to such an elite intellectual is a huge compliment. I do my best

@UnbornTao For the experiencer, from his phenomenological perspective nothing exists but experience. I don't have theories, I don't need them anymore, only direct consciousness. Funny coming from someone who is working so hard to develop a theory of epistemology right? I think that there is some purpose for a theory as an instrument to keep pointing back to raw experience. That is why I want a theory of epistemology that is based in a basic phenomenological ground. Very simple, like a rock. "experience is not existential" What do you mean by that? You can't experience anything that isn't an experience.

@DocWatts You ability to go deep on a subject is incredible. This is the stuff books are made from. If what you wrote is truly understood it will certainly help with building a new healthy and aware perspective.

Here and now, it's eternal. It's another way to look at the nature of experience. Phenomenologically speaking there is no such thing as "time" besides a conception of it. There cannot be an experience of something that doesn't exist, if that is seen, it all becomes an eternal now.

@DocWatts Wow! Thank you for the amazing feedback. I love to see that at least someone finds this kind of writing useful. I'll be sure to check out your essay as soon as possible. It's funny you should mention these kind of sources as I haven't even touched any of them. I do have trouble with reading books. The commitment to such a large volume always deters me. I do learn a lot from podcasts and the like. (I need to be really engaged to get those receptors to perceive at least something) Of course that means I might reinvent the wheel a couple of times, but on the plus side I get the nice feeling of eureka even though someone must have thought about it at one point. Most of the inspiration is from personal contemplation of direct experience. Trying to put things together to make sense of what experience is.

@UnbornTao I'm only conscious of the ever present now, and not of anything else. There's not a thing that is not Now, nor would such a thing make sense.

Are you directly conscious of Being as absolute? What does "absolute" even mean? In what way? "What is now?" That question doesn't make sense. What isn't Now?

Might be good enough for non dual gurus, but it's very problematic if you want some serious philosophical argument. What do you mean by "what is"? These are the same - pure experience - pure hallucination

@Reciprocality Oh I get it now, it's about the previous essay about Deconstructing reality that was linked in the introduction. In that case your paraphrasing is spot on. In this essay I try to make it as technical and rational as possible to be introduced to a serious philosopher rather than the old essay which is like a modern Buddhism take.

The formation of a Duality between experience and the external world Experience, as it is lived – or seen from within, is inherently non-dual – there is no internal split between “subject” and “object” within the immediacy of perception. However, when one reflects on experience from a “meta-level” (which unsurprisingly itself arises within experience), a distinction appears between “what is experienced” and a supposed “external world” that causes it. This is basically the hard problem in a nutshell – the nature of experience is such that it can’t yet be explained in terms of physics, it’s more like magic. In that sense there is an apparent duality that is yet to be resolved by science. I believe we might solve it someday, and explain how such a phenomenon can exists within the brain cells, and can even generate a sense of self awareness in those cells that are aware of this phenomenon, but we are still not there.

This makes sense. I don't see any other thing besides experience itself as a substance of me. In what way is it absolute? How to verify this in experience? I say to leave all speculation and focus on what is directly available to us right now the true nature of experience.

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.