UnbornTao

The problem is that it is a closed-circuit questioning, as it already presupposes and holds the existence of your self (notice the separation) as real and solid, and, above all, as already "known." So, my claim is that currently you are clueless as to who or what is supposed to be the subject of free will or lack thereof. You just take what you hold yourself to be for granted. Beyond intellectual claims, you live as though what you do has consequences, and you likely experience yourself as having a say in the matter, so act with intelligence. I suspect this conversation could be used to justify all kinds of shit, and wonder why it is undertaken in the first place. It can be titillating, though.

@Shogi Maybe check out Obsidian.

By becoming conscious of it. You do that through questioning and opening yourself up to an insight of whatever's the case. Since we're talking about yourself here, question what you are.

You're focused on the wrong thing. I'd say go for what's actually true, whatever that turns out to be, not for intellect, or a theory to believe in.

Thank you. Whether that was a real insight or not, keep going for a deeper recognition!

Nice. I'd like to ask: What is it that you became conscious of?

As far as I know, it depends on your prompts as much as it does on the service itself. You'll have to generate highly specific prompts so that it does what you want it to do. A general command such as "polish up this manuscript in this or that way" might not yield the best results. Also, it likely won't occur in one shot. I'm not sure what limits it has regarding the amount of content it is able to process, so you might have to go one chapter at a time. In any case, you can always first check the free versions of these chatbots.

I'd add a question to that: What is religion as a whole up to?

Allow them to be there -- the confusion and frustration -- while continuing to pursue the subject of your contemplation. It is useful to remind yourself why you are inquiring in the first place -- what you want to grasp -- , so you can remain mindful of anything that isn’t a direct apprehension. It’s fine if you get distracted. Strictly following a ritualized practice isn't needed either, as you can question while going about your day. Wonder: “Who is the one experiencing frustration?” -- or anything else, for that matter. And keep your attention on the experience of yourself. Sometimes, you can simply shift to another activity -- exercising, pursuing a hobby, taking a walk, meditating, playing, etc. -- to help your mind refocus and calm down.

Should be on the Intellectual subforum.

Survival happens and will continue until death. Survival is life. These are two different pursuits, as you implied. But consider: individuals throughout history have had much worse conditions than yours, and they didn't wait for the right circumstances before they started their search. Some of them even gave up luxurious lives in order to seek out what's true. Circumstances are secondary. It's true that either way, most people do not care at all. Why impose artificial requisites on the act of questioning? Nothing is preventing you from looking into your own experience as it is now.

Process is itself indirect. Perception is done via the senses, as you say. It is composed of steps and is carried out over a period of time, whether lightning-fast or slow. Perhaps it'd be better to call what you're alluding to "personal experience." As a perception, it would be completely meaningless in itself (sensory input) without the activities of interpretation and cognition, which determine how one will relate to the "thing" perceived and what it means to oneself -- whether one finds it appealing or threatening, resists it or embraces it, and so on. What you said regarding language and assumptions, maybe. We'd also have to look into those. "What is it?" In this case, it would lead to comprehending what meaning is, whatever that turns out to be. To be clear, none of this suggests that you stop doing functional and healthy stuff! That is a different matter. That was just a rhetorical device. "Figuring out" this absolute/relative subject isn't going to cut it; it is a matter of "enlightenment." So, that's the goal. What do you mean by "Deconstructing every notion as an uninherent assumption"? Again, the work needs to be done, not just safely thought about from a distance. Extrapolating and repeating what one has heard or believes in is not the same as personally investigating things. You still consider meaninglessness to be depressive and negative, and so seem to react defensively when that is brought up. Yet this is a function of what you presume it has to imply, not of (comprehending) what it is. Regarding this direct experience/absolute consciousness business: Mu. You can actually get it yourself, just remember to come back and tell us once you do.

@Letho @AION zen sticks for you two.

In reality what's being defended is one's ignorance, not because of the content itself but because it is something believed! Whatever it is. Better to acknowledge that, and move on.

Sorry if it came out as a personal attack. In any case, it's true -- our culturally-shared obsession with ourselves doesn't help.

Then, perhaps, we'd be mainly talking about sensation rather than feeling, although of course the latter would likely also occur. Presumably, other animal species would sense it, yet the various feelings that we, as humans, might associate with the sensation -- such as irritation, worry, despair, or being startled -- might not be produced by the animal. That might give us a hint as to the origin of feeling. How can we clearly differentiate between sense, sensation, feeling, reaction, emotion, and state? Something to look into.

Now, could feeling itself be based on a thought, just of a different kind than what's usually meant by "thought"?

I liked the original trilogy, but not so much the recent ones. What made the original one so well-received, apart from that? The rest aren't considered as good. The element of terror was likely an important factor.

@z3rolight Thank you for the input. Consider, though, that contemplation as an intellectual activity is only a starting point. There are things that aid this work; arrogance and opinions aren't among them. From what I can tell, you are standing on a bunch of presumptions and conjecture, and that's fine. Yet, what helps here is being open and straightforward with oneself about one's experience as it is actually lived. This pushes us to experience the work and to make observations for ourselves, not just intellectualize about stuff.

@z3rolight My bad. I think I understand your question now, and so edited my response above. The question is just about the human condition as a whole -- experience, emotion, perception, relationship, performance, principles, and so on.

As they say, there's no freedom of thought without doubt.

Hey, dinosaurs. Hopefully it's good.