Spilling the beans

[Jirh]

On 12/05/2026 at 5:50 PM, tsuki said:

The most important feature of the story is that it wants to be played out, it needs to reach its conclusion. All stories have a charge, innate motion which is a compulsion from its origin to its conclusion. They grab us and take us places, we participate.

The experience of participating in a story is called emotion. We can always make the story explicit with language by experiencing the emotion. When the story is expressed, we can inspect it more clearly. In inspecting the story, we make it into an object of the mind that we can manipulate. In doing so, the underlying emotions change. We can completely decouple stories from emotions, which is to say that we stop participating in them, by not believing them. The more we believe a story, the less it is an object of the mind, the less we can manipulate it, the more real it appears and more emotions arise. We build stories ever since we were born as a person and a lot of stories have not been expressed and are still believed/participated in. There are no emotions apart from participation in a story.

I cannot confirm this, because some stories, no matter how much inspected, still have their full effect. Inspection simply adds awareness to the story. But it doesn't necessarily have an active role. It's mostly a passive observer. Our (mine at least) stories don't create our emotions. It's probably the other way around.

[tsuki]

18 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Empty space or blank screen are something. Nothingness is non being, no space, no process, no relationship, no change. Saying that unlimited relative change is nothing make no sense, because it's relative change. Nothingness is non existence, and precisely doesn't exist 

You are using the conventional understanding of concept "nothing" as an ontological argument. Since you clearly have a very sophisticated view of reality, I'm sure you know better than to treat conventional notions of what something is seriously.

What I'm saying when I'm using the word "nothing" is that there is no independent ontological grounding to anything that exists. We agree on the principle, but you disagree with me on semantics. You are saying there is only being and I'm saying that everything that exists is dependent on something else, so is not existing in the strict sense. It is appearance without substance, so in essence, nothing. All being collapses under careful observation, no things can be found. 

Yet, the totality of it can be dependent upon itself precisely because there's nothing there. It's something like a circular argument, refining itself infinitely. That totality is still nothing, without substance, and it's precisely the point. It may look more like infinity to you and that's okay.

 

[Breakingthewall]

13 minutes ago, tsuki said:

You are using the conventional understanding of concept "nothing" as an ontological argument. Since you clearly have a very sophisticated view of reality, I'm sure you know better than to treat conventional notions of what something is seriously.

What I'm saying when I'm using the word "nothing" is that there is no independent ontological grounding to anything that exists. We agree on the principle, but you disagree with me on semantics. You are saying there is only being and I'm saying that everything that exists is dependent on something else, so is not existing in the strict sense. It is appearance without substance, so in essence, nothing. All being collapses under careful observation, no things can be found. 

Yet, the totality of it can be dependent upon itself precisely because there's nothing there. It's something like a circular argument, refining itself infinitely. That totality is still nothing, without substance, and it's precisely the point. It may look more like infinity to you and that's okay.

 

It's a line of profound contemplation, much closer to reality than invoking a dreaming god as a deus ex machina, but the fact is that if there is a "substance" to what appears, it is the fact of being, and this being is a consequence of the limitation that reality is.

You could say that being is not something concrete, but it is. Reality cannot not be because it is not limited, so relative motion occurs without origin.

You could say that the ultimate substance of this relative motion is emptiness, nothingness, but the fact is that this limitless relative motion is substance itself. It is the totality.

Absolute emptiness is the ultimate door to absolute fullness; it is not something rational but an opening that occurs within you through which the totality is revealed. And for this to happen you have to open yourself to the absolute void.

[tsuki]

@Ziran @Stick @No1Here2c I appreciate you guys, thank you for participating.

44 minutes ago, Jirh said:

I cannot confirm this, because some stories, no matter how much inspected, still have their full effect. Inspection simply adds awareness to the story. But it doesn't necessarily have an active role. It's mostly a passive observer. Our (mine at least) stories don't create our emotions. It's probably the other way around.

If that's the case for you, I sympathize. There has to be a lot of confusion. Keep chipping away at it. I've been in therapy for 10 years ever since I had my first enlightenment (fucked me up real good, the depth of it). I don't want to give you an impression that I'm free from stories, but there's very little compulsion left, mostly around food and basic survival.

 

[tsuki]

53 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

It's a line of profound contemplation, much closer to reality than invoking a dreaming god as a deus ex machina, but the fact is that if there is a "substance" to what appears, it is the fact of being, and this being is a consequence of the limitation that reality is.

You could say that being is not something concrete, but it is. Reality cannot not be because it is not limited, so relative motion occurs without origin.

You could say that the ultimate substance of this relative motion is emptiness, nothingness, but the fact is that this limitless relative motion is substance itself. It is the totality.

Absolute emptiness is the ultimate door to absolute fullness; it is not something rational but an opening that occurs within you through which the totality is revealed. And for this to happen you have to open yourself to the absolute void.

I sense that you are unsure of what the ultimate substance of reality is. All I can say is this: keep staring away at it until it disappears. 

I have a sense that my reply is quite anticlimactic, but I'm all zinged out for today. I appreciate you though, I really enjoyed our back and forth.

[Breakingthewall]

19 minutes ago, tsuki said:

All I can say is this: keep staring away at it until it disappears

It could disappear, but I can't disappear. Open your heart, in it is everything. Reality lives.