UnbornTao

@Rigel Nice! Go have some insights.

It would be a matter of you serving something that isn't yourself, not something else serving yourself, as if.

@Davino Cute. What's our conscious experience in the matter when all is said and done? That's the key.

Sure.

I wasn't dismissing thought but rather pointing out its inadequacy when it comes to grasping infinity. We really live as if our notions, wants, experience, can be a consciousness of it. Take into account beliefs can straight up generate experiences and states so that they are self-confirming and consistent with one's worldview. "What is my experience in the matter? Is this a state, perception, conviction, concept? When everything else is set aside: What am I for real?" I bring this up because you is still held as your self -- localized, embodied.

I'd start with experience: thinking about eating isn't the same as eating. So, we notice a difference here. But it is a good question. As an analogy, no matter how big a cup is, it will never be able to hold the entirety of the ocean. Hence the assertion that what existence is can't be thought. Yet, we still confuse about it with it. We can remain open, though, and go after breakthroughs.

@Nilsi There's also the tendency to mistake fluency in "spiritual" language with having had insight for yourself. The latter is not so easily come by.

Good question.

But is it? You experience your self as being a certain way right now, and as a rather solid reality -- the center of it all. I suspect that assertions of that kind come from an “intellectual” stance. We likely don’t yet truly apprehend what infinity is, except as a fuzzy notion. This is important to recognize. My point is that that you say sounds a lot like “somethings," this and that. What are you, a thought, objects, etc? These are experienced as distinct from one another, so we say a thought of an apple isn’t an apple. One could say an apple is infinity, and that you are God, but when the apple gets peeled, you likely don’t see it as if it were you or yours, except as a temporary state, perhaps based on conviction. There’s an overlooked dynamic in operation here, independent of our more explicit beliefs that we want to be true. And hey, maybe an apple isn't an apple. It turns out that absolute can’t be thought because thought is late to the party, so to speak, even though it may have been invited (it is a form of the absolute). And, after the bullshit, the laundry.

A thought is a thought; you are you. "Myself" is distinct from everything it is not. One's nature is actually up for grabs, no matter what we think. What you are is what you are, an activity is an activity. Confusing those is a trap. For example: Can you think "infinity"? What comes to mind?

What it is and what it implies is up for grabs, and this is very likely coming from hearsay. Your job is to personally grasp what you are, whatever that may turn out to be. And it can't be what you think it is.

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.