Scholar

I was talking if there was an insect that was egoless it would not behave in the Jesus-esk fashion. Yes but that's what you prefer. Others prefer to rape people and create cults. This was my question, if Leo, with God's perspective 24/7, wanted to create a sex-slave cult, and was fully conscious of doing so, why wouldn't he? He would! And it would be Good. And even a fully delusional, egoic person who does the same would also be Good. Your preferences are what is so egoic. You say Jesus is better than Hitler when you know it isn't true. You deliberately delude yourself.

There is no evil, that very concept is delusional. Evil is not simply "fine", it is perfect. If you were to be tortured for all of eternity, it would be perfect, not simply "fine", not simple "Not evil", it would be literally perfect. It would be Goodness itself. It's not 99% of God that is pure Goodness, but 100%. The 1% is your ego making judgements. How does anything you say contradict that God is all suffering? Jesus and Buddha behaved how they behaved because they were human beings, and egoless human beings tend to behave that way. And egoless insect might not behave that way. An egoless psychopath might not behave that way. And it would be Good. You are still making it out to be as if Jesus was any better, more godly, more valid than Adolf Hitler. Both of them were equally Godly and Divine, both of them were the Will of God.

That seems incoherent and more of a wish than truth. The Selfish with a capital S created a world full of unimaginable suffering, and it is Good with a capital G. You have created all of the wars, all of the unthinkable things that happen, you did it with infinite intelligence and consciousness. You did it and you will continue doing so, and now you claim that you prefer for yourself not to suffer? You are contradicting your own godhood. The ego doesn't want to suffer, but the Selfless Self wants the ego not to want to suffer, and it wants the ego to suffer despite not wanting to suffer. It is Divine Will.

That sounds like egoic justification for moralizing. You still make judgements over things being better than others. There is no reason to align your actions with some deeper want that you are unaware of, as all is perfect as is. Even if Leo doesn't want others to suffer, he can still choose to cause suffering if he prefers. Now imagine if there was an intelligent enlightened insect species without empathy, would you go and tell then not to enslave us because they don't truly want to? Your perspective seems really human centric and lacks diversity of perspective. Don't forget, you already rape, murder and create suffering in others, fully consciously and willingly, and you enjoy doing so. If that was no the case, suffering, rape and murder would not exist. It's simply the ego which cannot handle this truth.

It's an easy decision because of the ego. But there is no morality, there is nothing wrong with anything whatsoever. Our preferences are just preferences. What if someone prefers to make others suffer? What if they are fully conscious of what they are doing, and still prefer it? What if they like making themselves suffer, or simply do not care because the bigger picture makes it irrelevant. If reality is perfect as is why be so alarmed when someone actually embraces that attitude to the fullest? Especially when they desire to create suffering, or if Leo decided to create a cult, why would he not do so if he wanted to and was okay with all the consequences?

Yes but what if Leo wanted to rape and kill people, what if that was his true authentic desire? Why would politics be important then? Why focus on things like happiness and joy if we could also focus on misery and suffering? Is it only because our ego was constructed in a way to do so?

Leo why does politics matter? Is it merely because of your own preferences? How can we deem reality to be perfect if we continue to measure it? If you had a preference for the world to be destroyed, would you manipulate us so as to lead to the destruction of the world? And if not, why not?

There is noone to take control, and there is also no control. There is no difference between Will and Actuality/Beingness, they are the same. All that is happening already is "your will". I find the usage of words really clumsy here because it can mislead people very easily. There is noone inside the eternal now. There is nothing happening. Happeningness/Beingness is the same as Nowness/Actuality. There are no objects inside Nowness, objectness IS nowness/beingness. Nowness is not simply the place where everything is happening, redness is nowness, fearness is nowness, soundness is nowness. The usage of "presence" is really misleading because it is inherently dualistic, as if there was the essence of existence was different from things that exist. But there are no things that exist, thingness/consciousness/experienceness is the essence of existence. It IS existenceness. ONE AND THE SAME. The ego is existenceness, as is all else, as all there is is existenceness. Isness is existenceness. I made a thread on Nessness cognition and I wish people would adopt it, it makes language so much less clunky.

Lmao, you forgot: 3) Utter absurdity/magic.

In the past few months I have observed a significant but subtle change in my perspective on the substance of reality. It seems to me that it is a truer way of looking and understanding the world, or maybe a more accurate way, a more conscious way? It is like seeing the actuality of experience, leading to an intellectual framework that incorporates the nature of existence itself into language. Whereas most operate in terms of objecthood and processes, it seems that both of these are nothing but Nessness. Nessness is another word for being, for actuality or existence. I find it very fitting, because it points to what everything truly is, everything is itselfness. Red is redness, love is loveness, beauty is beautyness. Appending the word "ness" to all fascets of being, to formulize the recognition that these fascets are being itself. I feel like there is a great confusion in the general population of what consciousness is, it is like people are lost within the content but cannot see the substance of the content. Consciousness is not merely experience, experienced by an experiencer. The essential nature of consciousness is being, it is existence itself. Beingness is consciousness. What we call the material world is equally as much beingness as the "experience" of the color red is beingness. They are what reality is, they are not within reality, they are not projected upon a ground of existence. They are that which is realness, isness, beingness, existenceness. What I have not yet investigated is the connectiveness of all substance. It seems to me like all aspects of reality are intimiately connected, colorness with soundness, soundness with feelingness, feelingness with thoughtness. And these connections do not seem to be rational or logical, or coherent. These connections seem to be impossible. Impossibilityness is an integral part of them, yet I find impossibility not to be a perfectly fitting word. It is beyond impossible, it implies a Power so great and full that it is beyond all measures of power, a Power so great it exceeds greatness, it exceeds all categories, it exceeds all limitations. Understanding itself is an impossibility, yet it is there. The absurdity of the connectivity of reality seems to be divinity. Divinity being the connectedness of all fascets of realness, the impersonal Intimacy. Intimacy seems to be a very fitting word, the intimacy of realness. There is no depth to realness, it has only one layer, one layer that is itself. It cannot get closer to itself than it is. "I am". The fundamental nature of the Self is not Iness, but Amness. Amness is the same as Isness, or Beness. It is existence itself. Amness is completely impersonal, meaning it is not Iness but includes Iness. Yet Amness is Intimacy. It is not merely including Intimacy, it is the nature of Intimacy. Amness and Intimacy are one and the same (I have to note that what I mean by intimacy does not fit into the individuated category of intimacy, as a feeling). It seems to me like the category of mind is false. It implies an inherent seperation from reality, as if consciousness was unreal and our abstract thoughts of reality were true. Yet the inverse is true, or not really the inverse, because even the abstract thoughts are beingness. Consciousness is not a mind, it is existence. It is being. It is all there is, it is Isness. Everything that exists must be consciousness, existence itself is consciousness. We might as well throw out these concepts altogether. Consciousness, existence, reality. It's all the same thing. It is Ness-ness, or Nessness. That to me describes it very well, because it is itself as itself, and not just that. It is the isness of itself. Any other word would imply some sort of seperation. Or, it would not be inclusive enough. Nessness not only includes Isness, but also Nothingness. It includes absence and presence. It includes All Ness, because Ness is the nature of reality, Ness is reality, Ness is existing. Nessness is itself as all that can be and not be, all that Nesses. And all must Ness. This is Nessness cognition, where, within our usages of language and thought, the substance of objects merges with itself, where the Isness of all becomes itself, or is revealed as itself. It could be no other way, it is always this way, it Nesses. I have not yet seen the groundless ground. I am curious if it can be found in the Isness. I don't know if deconstruction exists. It does not seem like there could be anything to be deconstructed. Isness seems to be final, it seems to be untouchable. There is nothing to deconstruct it, as it is deconstructionness itself. Right now it seems to me like I can sense a veil, a sense of a source of Isness so to speak. This is the sense I get when I see the Impossibility of existence and all of it's fascets (like the impossiblity of any aspect of reality, whether it is redness or straightness, or softness) It's like the Isness is a subtle trail, it's truly magical or Absurd nature has an implication. Not an intellectual implication, not even an emotional implication. I would almost call it a metaphysical implication. That seems to be a fitting word. Metaphysical not in the sense of philosophy, but in the sense of being itself. Denying it would bé like denying consciousness/Nessness, it is not possible because denial itself is Nessness. I can't see it, I can't sense it really. It is like an aura? That does not seem to be a good word for it. All I can call it for now is incomprehensible.

As far as I see it you are not aware of the map at all, you are helplessly trapped inside it. You confuse a map in the map for the map.

Saying that he is blending the map with the territory is also blending the map with the territory. You and @Joseph Maynor seem to not yet have developed vision logic, you are not capable of holding paradoxes and logical contradictions. http://www.perspectus.se/tjordan/Vision-logic.html This is a problem that cannot be solved by simply talking about it. You inherently lack a way to perceive the world. This is true by the way for a lot of people in this forum.

No matter what he would say, he would blend the map with the territory. What is "The truth cannot be communicated" but a map?

It's a joke. It wouldn't be funny if you saw.

@Truth Addict Yes, what if Leo is indeed deluded? It seems to me like you do not know, and it seems to me like you are recognizing that you cannot know unless you would discover the truth for yourself. What is the point of asking Leo whether he is deluded? If he was, clearly he wouldn't know, and if he was not, then clearly he could not prove it to you. Whatever he could possibly say could either delude you or urge you to act. Does God exist? Is Leo deluded? What is the difference?

No, no, no. It's not that direct experience can be trusted. It is that trust is a direct experience.

How closely have you looked?

Nobody is shit, only shit is shit. And also, nobody is delusional but delusion itself. Nothing is absurd but absurdity itself. Nothing is impossible but impossibility itself. Everything is connected, literally. But only connection itself is connected. Just look at it, how absurd it is.

Nothing I said had anything to do with what you said. I am saying that only redness is red. No thing is red, but redness. The same is true for everything. It is utterly absurd, just look at it. Trying to make sense out of it will lead to more delusional, as what we speak of is non-sensical, literally. It is literally impossible. JUST LOOK AT IT!

There is no definition of worthness, there can only be worthness. The definition of worthiness is the definition of worthiness, not worthiness itself. You keep confusing two things for being the same. Absurdly delusional, yet it is how all of us view reality. Isn't that funny?

If you truly see worthness for what it is, you will see that it is literally fucking impossible. Reality is literally impossible, everything about it is literally impossible. It is utterly and completely absurd. It's so funny that it is not even funny anymore. For worth to exist it took literally the impossible. Worthness is Divine beyond all comprehension. Just look at it, there is no doubt. To create worthness it took something so powerful, it had to exceed all limitations of power. It took something so intelligent, it had to exceed all limitations of intelligence. It took something so magical, it had to exceed all limitations of magic. And not just worthness, but everything else too. Just looking at it might have you crumble in terror at the Might of that which is Creation. It might just scare you so much that there is nothing else to do but laugh. If worth did not exist we could not be talking about it.

There is precisely one thing that is worth, it is utterly obvious. The only thing that is valuable is value. The only thing that is worth it is worth. Just as much as the only thing to be red is redness, there can be no other thing that could possibly be red but redness. It would be absurd to claim otherwise. Look at how delusional you are. You and everyone else. You keep pointing your fingers at A and you keep saying that it is B. How could anything but value be valuable? How could anything but pain be painful? How could anything but joy be joyful? How could anything but beauty be beautiful? How could anything but anything be anything? You are utterly confused, if you were to be less confused, you would see the impossible. It is happening all the time, right in front of your eyes. No, even better, right within your eyeness.

He might understand thingness as the being of thoughtness itself. He might see: All things are thoughts, because things themselves are thoughts. That which is seen, that which is heard, that which is felt, that is no thing. It is no-thing. It is nothing. It is. It is everything but what we say it is. This is the madness of reality. Just look at it, it's absurd. It's literally impossible (outside the realm of thoughtness/thingness). Making sense of madness can only truly be done by the mad.

Could you explain what you think these groundless assumptions are? You had questions which to me indicated ignorance, if you were not ignorant you would not ask these question. It does not matter whether you deeply care about these issues or not, and again, you seem to be disconnected from these issues. You can care about an idea, yet not about the reality of the idea, which is why you could come up with silly questions such as: What I tried to convey to you is how to acquire a higher perspective. The fact that you have not experienced the truth is precisely why I tried to motivate you to do so. I have misjudged you, I did not expect you to react this emotionally to something that I thought could motivate and help you understand "higher perspective". For that I apologize. And yes, I know nothing. You still seek for someone to give you an answer to something that you can only find for yourself. All we can do is provoke your ego into action, which I seemingly failed at. Notice that you yet again seek an idea, an intellectual answer to something that could not possibly be intellectual. You commit the same ignorance I have described to you in the first post.