Anton Rogachevski

@Breakingthewall This is profound thank you sharing ❤️

@Leo Gura Leo, if all scientists became philosophers or mystics who would build your pc and smartphone? Who would solve global warming? They would just sit and talk all day about how well they understand God, and how stupid everyone is for not understanding it. Where does that lead us? What's the value? God as a firefly is already caught within the confines of the brain, it is simply the nature of consciousness as it becomes self aware in a high state. A high state is not a natural phenomenon, but a distortion which is not supposed to happen naturally. Only a mild high state from a long meditation, that I'll grant. Sorry to ruin the party, I'm afraid you won't like my new hypothesis. I think that psychedelics disturb the module in the brain that is responsible for perception of limits and so you get an illusion of infinity, and since you are inside the illusion there's no way to disprove it as there is no apparent reference point anymore - that was the belief in an external finite world.

@kbone Thank you! I'll check it out.

@Breakingthewall Sounds interesting. Are you conscious of this? How did you derive that explanation? The physical plane is full of limits. The laws of physics for example - the limit on the speed of light. The essay was explaining that I don't have access to reality and so I'm not making any Ontological claims, only Phenomenological.

This part is a hypothetical myth. But I don't see how something other than imagination may be infinite, it doesn't make sense for something to go on forever. The darkness I'm referring to is the beginning of life on earth. I'm not saying the void is limited or that it has started on Earth, but it is relevant for us humans. The other option is indian myth - stating that it's cyclical, but these are just backwards rationalization attempts to explain the appearent phenomenon.

I agree with @UnbornTao @zurew @Carl-Richard You guys are shooting in the right direction and see the situation here clearly and with great sanity. @ActualizedJohn You are going in a great direction from what I see! You are skeptical and curious and actually want the Truth, and this brings me joy! Keep going like that and your understanding will deepen with time, that's almost guaranteed. This is a great assumption you have: "There may be something deeper." That's a very advanced question you are asking, as it relates to the field of Ontology, but to go so far as to claim something about the actual nature of reality itself requires a prior basis of understanding and a well founded epistemic ground as the foundation for this inquiry. Some question to contemplate further with this if you would like to: What is your definition of Solipsism? What does it mean for you to be in a Solipsistic World if that was the case? What does it mean to "know"? How can we "know"? What is "truth"? (there are many kinds) How accurate and reliable is the instrument of inquiry? (the brain) Is the human brain designed to derive truth? Is experience a valid instrument? What is a "proof"? What kind of proof can even satisfy you? How to prove things? What is a belief? What isn't a belief?

Thank you dude! I really wish it would spark more of a mutual contemplation around here, but get almost no comments : (

Are you a Joker of some sort? I've worked on this essay for two days straight now, I think I might be obsessed! Anyway, it's way more concise and polished now, you would love it.

@UnbornTao How do you define "truth", what do you expect it to look like? What do you think a breakthrough is? Is a detailed description of experience satisfactory for you? In what way would you like to "know" experience? Yep it really was a deep contemplation! The text is meant to be a guided live contemplation and a direct observation of experience as one reads it. Thank you for the feedback dear friend, Cheers

@theleelajoker Sounds cool dude! Did you really go to a Guru?

There is an old saying in the text "You sometimes need a thorn to take out another thorn." (I'm paraphrasing) So it's not so simple, if it were, Buddhism and all the other spiritual traditions wouldn't exist and everyone would just be enlightened. In my opinion a basic conceptual understanding of this is pretty good to have. A conceptual framework is somewhat like a fishnet, and just like with catching fish, you need some tool to apprehend the ethereal spiritual experience, or else you'll simply return empty-handed.

So you must like Leo famous "Look at your hand and shut up" I think a complex brain likes complexity and that's pretty simple. Nope still not. hint? Do you want this at the top? to set intentions?

@theleelajoker Thank you very much for feedback it's pretty masterful I would say! I'll try to apply some of it right now. You didn't like the brain example? I thought that it was a pretty cool and paradoxical example of how the ideas are not the same as reality. That would be a bit of a spoiler wouldn't it? If only it were that simple. Simplistic answers are not as satisfying in my opinion. Maybe for some it works. Isn't that useful for avoiding misleading ways in which it can be interpreted? I think it saves time to know these things instead of getting lost in ideas. New part to explain more: Without some degree of darkness there wouldn't be any manifestations because the Void is pure light, and just like in a projector you need to filter that light through film that covers some light partly to even have a picture.

@UnbornTao One may not, as there's nothing to grasp there. ------------------ I think we've pretty much beaten the poor horse to death. Are you satisfied with the dept of contemplation? Were you aiming at something in particular? Do you think there's more to be found here? On that note I must recommend for you to read my comprehensive and detailed Non-Duality guide with no bullshit and very detailed explanations. It's quite a read, but I promise it will be worth it. I've recently revised and refreshed it with new insights and made it even more clear and epistemically humble and accurate. I think that it will help shed more light on this very ethereal nuanced subject that also involves experience as it's main substance. I would be very honored to hear your opinion about it. Cheers

@UnbornTao Are you directly conscious of that process you are describing, or is that an idea about that process?

The fallacy of thinking that if there's a word for it, then it must exist somewhere as category, object or as phenomenon. It plays somewhat with confirmation bias. If you think it's insignificant, just imagine for a second a word like "god". How many people actually falsely and blindly believe there must be an entity somewhere since all the religions are shouting this word. All Words are ape noises pointing nowhere.

@UnbornTao So my question for you is what is the difference between experience and direct experience?

Beautiful!

@Leo Gura Thank you for your response, I really appreciate that you try your best to answer all the comments. I hope you can see that this is debate and it seems that this process must be in debate form because that's how minds operate. They need to be convinced by a powerful and coherent argument. I do find your statements to be a bit optimistic about the scope of their application beyond Phenomenology, the field that I find most fascinating and it's quite enough for me to focus on and really dig deep into the basic epistemic tool that is the mind. I believe that this is foundational to any intellectual persuit. What is your vision for science? How would it look different if your insights are applied?

Do you know with a 100% certainly that this is the case? Where is this world? From what authority do you purpose these claims? Do you understand how extravagant your claims are? You talk as if you know actual Truth. Is it the case?

Haha yeah, but then we wouldn't have had so much fun playing around with these amazing and fundamental ideas. I feel most alive when I'm in such a conversation and deep contemplation. It's really a pleasure! So thank you again. When had "being" entered the conversation? What is that? How does it relate to experience? How does activity affect what "I actually am"? Isn't that a noise an owl makes? I don't know what that word signifies actually. It seems that it supposes a world where there are "beings" - when you think you are a "self" you imagine other "selves" too. I told you, presumably an ape like creature on a floating rock out in space. What did you not like about that answer? Of course there are accepted intersubjective ideas we all agree on and understand quickly and easily, that's not the point. We are not talking about being pragmatic here, we are trying to dissect phenomenon, and to see how "reality" is being constructed on the go, and how the brain takes that construction to be "real". I would give you that pencil in the physical realm, but what actually would occur there phenomenologically speaking would be ineffable. Think of them as two realities happening simultaneously: The physical occurrence of materials and biological creatures, and what those creatures perceive within their brain simulated experiences and the seamless way in which the brain is labeling all the objects and persons within that simulation. Can you see that in the physical there was an actual object, but inside the mind it's an experience shadow with an idea of a "pencil" attached to it? From a phenomenological perspective there is no "pencil", just experience: colors, sensations of touching, sounds, idea labels, "self" concept, "other" concept - these are the building blocks of experience.

@kbone We shouldn't compare ourselves to each other as every case is special in its own. Thank you dude, Cheers

@Leo Gura "Science" (I say it like that because there's no actual entity that this label may be sticked on) has made a very clever trick by separating itself from Philosophy entirely, it's own mother. On the other hand, it's not even interested in Truth, it's goal is accurate prediction and not truth seeking - So what do you want from it? It's not promising you Truth. Science doesn't deal with "what it is, but rather "how it is" - an accurate description of its behaviour. Please explain, what is your quarrel with Science exactly? You say that reality is undefinable, I agree, and so do they, so they just skip this step and go on with progress. I'm sorry, but to me it seems a bit like you are fighting with windmills.

Physics are important to phisicists, so I leave it to them. I look deeper into phenomenology because that I have true access to and that's the most important thing for an experiencing being.

Pure Awareness phenomenologically speaking, but presumably an evolved ape like creature that thinks it's a "human". You are just finding another synonym or a different way to say the same thing and pretend it's a new and separate phenomenon. It's a mind trick. You want there to be a "self", because it's scary to not exist. Various degrees of consciousness, but the substance is the same.