Matrix and freedom

[Breakingthewall]

A human being is a social being . this is obvious to anyone. What's not so obvious is the extent of it.

The human mind is evolutionarily programmed in a very concrete way, with very little margin for freedom. Language isn't just another function , it's an evolutionary mechanism that creates a cloud of information shared between individuals, sustained by emotional mechanisms of enormous power.

This cloud of information is structured in symbols, and the symbols represent acceptance, rejection, family, love, status, worth within the group, mythology, and ultimately, the world itself.

A child is held up by their parents , completely dependent. An adult is held up by the mental matrix they create through interaction; that is their reality, the ground they stand on, the ocean of possibilities they navigate, and what guarantees their survival. Without the group, they're a larva , they'd be dead within a few days.

When we talk about enlightenment, we're talking about the fact of existing without the support of the mental matrix as psychological ground. This means being completely alone before reality, with no foundation or ground other than the fact of existing. The problem is that is impossible to exist psychologically without any support, any source. In isolation, the psyche itself creates the support by neurosis, remembering, pointing what is lack, what should be different. This is not an habit that you can to release, it's the ground of your existence as a psyche, and an human mind. You can't "let go the ego" because that ego what creates an structure for the stability of the psyche. 

In my experience there is only one way to do the change: the openess to the direct existence by mechanical means, like meditation and psychedelic added to the construction of a mental frame that allows that openess. If some moment, openess happen a moment , ant then the psyche itself starts a recalibration. It's a deep change that implies the dissolution of many essential grips, many of them unconscious. It happens slowly and it depends of those moments of openess. 

In some point those moments of openess start to be more common and the individual undergoes a shift and steps out of the mental matrix, coming to exist directly in reality without an interpretive filter. The mind stops being the support; the support becomes the direct fact of being. No interpretation or explanation is needed, because this fact implies everything.

By existing directly, without foundation, the nature of reality reveals itself . it's perceived in every instant. The fact of being manifests its indefinable quality. It simply is what exists; it's absolutely obvious, it implies everything, nothing is missed, it's not outside. At a given moment, you perceive yourself as that. Then for you it's absolutely normal being the reality what is, that is expressed as this form. It doesn't implies that the others are unreal, in fact it's irrelevant, reality is, that's everything. 

Edited Friday at 11:58 PM by Breakingthewall

[VeganAwake]

It's interesting because I can completely understand how so-called enlightenment would seem/appear/be described this way.

It wasn't like amnesia though, or forgetting who you are. It's not a denial, avoidance or disregard of yourself.

It's also not forgetting how to function in reality or loosing self control. That would be a mental health issue or something.

Nothing actually dies, falls away or collapses.......these are just words used for a lack of being able to describe a non-happening or something that just SEEMS to occur. 

I can understand how these types of words make it sound like a big actual physical happening of sorts.

And the descriptions obviously vary greatly because everyone uses different descriptive wording/language.

The sense of self/ego doesn't dissapear, dissolve, die, collapse,  merge or ascend anywhere.

It's simply recognized as having never been a real separate entity.

That's why the word "illusion" seems to fit really well. "Something that looks, feels, or seems real, but is actually false, misleading, or misunderstood"

It's not the end of knowing how to function in society and or earning a living for you and your family. You don't forget how to be a banker or lawyer or carpenter for example. I remember how it was being the self character in the past and it's clear how it seemed to emerge at a young age.

But that's not saying it might not change either, anything can happen. A lot of people apparently relax a lot more, because there is no longer a "self" needing to uphold the life standards it had adopted once upon a time.

It's not a state of mind or achievement someone attains. In other words, the seeker never finds whatever it feels is lacking. It's completely hopeless in that sense.

Nobody becomes liberated because nobody was confined in the first place. 

And THAT very realization is the freedom sought-after. It's just overshadowed by the illusory experience of being incomplete.

Reality is already perfectly whole, complete and free.

It's unconditional freedom.

[kavaris]

Im goin over your words, and im tryina isolate just one idea for you, for, I dont normally touch these delicate quandaries, but im changing things up, just to shake the etch-a-sketch and see what happens

36 minutes ago, VeganAwake said:

the seeker never finds whatever it feels is lacking

The seeker can never find the lacking, that is, you might call it penia (poverty or lack) inb4 how eros is born and neither fully destitute nor satisfied, etc, etc...

The truly ignorant dont philosophize, because they dont *feel* lack, mistaking emptiness for fullness sake. Only the persons caught in between are in some sense aware of the in between~ness. They are who is to pursue wisdom at all in that case, and what is wisdom then?

That is, what is wisdom within this context, of either, \*that which is within (or around) the hole?... The lack?...

(p.s. woops i thought both posts were by the same pers., oh well, i guess i meant to ask both of yous in this case now)

Edited Saturday at 06:03 AM by kavaris

[kavaris]

Ill preface w/ this idea, 'doesnt it invalidate our understanding of self (the Self as the one who knows what is), upon promoting lack/illusion to the highest position? Yay?... Nay?... Paradox is the next obvious perspective after that... And if in fact "paradox", then what?

Yous may have had a diff road, but im jumping ahead.

p.s. you can still have god(s) as a functional element i think, cause its "a god"~that is an extension of self~, the God is like a claim about the infinite self, infinite possible perspectives on gods, or something like that... im adding that in as i read someones talking around god, gods or God.

 

Edited Saturday at 07:22 AM by kavaris

[Breakingthewall]

6 hours ago, VeganAwake said:

The sense of self/ego doesn't dissapear, dissolve, die, collapse,  merge or ascend anywhere.

It's simply recognized as having never been a real separate entity.

Id say that the self with all that it implies, its entire narrative and attachments, its emotional needs for validation, status, and position in society, it reveals itself as secondary or not essential, not illusory.

That is, it continues to be perceived as real. You know you have a body that can be damaged and a social position that will affect your reality. You don't want people to run away from you, nor do you want to live in misery, but that's not your essence; it's your circumstance. You've detached it from your system.

As you've said many times, the problem is that the normal thing is to replace it with another identity: God, soul, whatever. This happens because your psyche needs that identity to avoid collapsing; it's not something you can choose at will. That's why when you say that identity is an illusion, I say no, it's a structural reality of the psyche created by evolution, and to be free of it requires a profound change on several levels.

When the self is detached it's seen as not essential. you still exist but essentially you are not a or b, essentialy you are, what you are is the fact of being, and circumstancially you are a person, etc. but this is not something that you see and that's it, it's something that happens when that detachment happens, then the self is seen as circumstancial. This is a fundamental difference, you can't tell someone: look, the self is illusion, when you see it, you are free. No, because the attachment are real when they are operating in his system. 

[Breakingthewall]

5 hours ago, kavaris said:

The truly ignorant dont philosophize, because they dont *feel* lack, mistaking emptiness for fullness sake. Only the persons caught in between are in some sense aware of the in between~ness. They are who is to pursue wisdom at all in that case, and what is wisdom then?

I think that those who don't ask themselves these questions are those who are comfortable in the self, those who can't even intuit that it's possible to free themselves from it, and those who wouldn't want to do so even if it were possible because they are totally focused on it.

There are many of these latter types in spirituality; they use spirituality to elevate the self.

[Breakingthewall]

This operational shift is called enlightenment, not because you understand something you didn't understand before, but because your operating system was previously entirely integrated with your social identity, making it dense and dull. Its source of functioning, of creativity, was this structure built throughout your life.

When you manage to separate this structure, the act of being itself takes center stage; it becomes the source of functioning and creativity, illuminating the psyche because there is no longer a dense structure filtering it. That structure still exists, but as an operating system, not as the essential core of your being.

[VeganAwake]

On 8/1/2026 at 6:50 AM, Breakingthewall said:

This happens because your psyche needs that identity to avoid collapsing; it's not something you can choose at will. That's why when you say that identity is an illusion, I say no, it's a structural reality of the psyche created by evolution, and to be free of it requires a profound change on several levels.

I would describe it like the psyche gets intertwined with identity, and then everything feels/becomes personal.

When you say "fact of being", what are you referring to? The body? The mind? Both?

Look at what makes up this "fact of being" experience.

What is it exactly?

Does it have a location?

What are it's characteristics?

Is there anything behind it?

 

Notice if there is resistance to looking?

Edited 8 hours ago by VeganAwake

[Joseph Maynor]

On 8/1/2026 at 4:50 AM, Breakingthewall said:

it's something that happens when that detachment happens, then the self is seen as circumstancial. 

Maybe the self is created.

[kavaris]

As i was riffing, i'd invoked the possible situation of uncovering the *paradox of self, in the sense that... its just difficult to have a simple sentence on just the fact that "its an illusion, but i know its an illusion, cause i derive prior to an illusion, that im calling the apriori illusion, etc, etc.", so if we were further driven towards "its an illusion", i would consider the quality of the illusion itself, as a pattern or clump of things. For that reason im taking a long time to really retrieve any words on whats gonna be the next impasse.

I'll say that the layered, lego castle of construction, the temple which is in a constant state of change, it is always in an upwards or downwards direction, and that is kindve, by in large, what it seems like, a constant rebuilding of function, meaning and form, in order to then take what we see as the *clumps of patterns, and connect them further (or reconnect, reduplicate em, etc.), into the larger whole.

In this sense what you have is affectation itself, as that clumping together, that may also de-illusion or re-illusion, like re-absorbing the sponge so its no longer rock hard, except that theres always a sentient rock there that can re-absorb the whole thing in some way / making everything alive, which probably leads out unto the waters of our next impasse... but i havent thought about it yet in that particular way.

It also may make *paradox itself defined slightly differently, cause the whole thing is a paradox that keeps re-absorbing the familiarizing waters.

p.s. we should probably just get rid of "paradox" as a word (or as the very strong, weighted version of it), cause it feels like "No, that cant happen", unless we are anticipating a point where things should ultimately stop and no longer happen, then we might want to keep hold of it. I dont think it can be summed up, but i dont have a strong opinion on that idea either way / its continuous, if only to change our perspectives. I dont know.

Edited 7 hours ago by kavaris

[kavaris]

(cont.) A year ago or so, i was tryin to invoke this lemniskos  term, because what i moreso was going for was like a knotted, eight loop / track -kindve thing, as even in the most paradoxical of pardoxes experienced, we may never really know, encounter or realize it to be a paradox,

In that sense, the word lemniskos, or something unique to describe this "loop that you are on while its looping" is the word for what it may feel like in that particular predicament. I mean, sometimes we do have a paradox before/in front of us, and we also are feeling it just as much the paradox that it is soo in that sense it still is very much making sense to me too. I dont know. Im just throwin some things out there that are like rough sketches of a thought or two.

p.s. i just looked up this term and i thought it was an interesting result: matrix/ˈmātriks/The word matrix comes from the Latin matrix, meaning "pregnant animal" or "womb," which derives from mater, meaning "mother" (now im getting mother earth, very mitochondria Eve, woman tribe -vibes)

Edited 7 hours ago by kavaris

[oOo]

@Breakingthewall You're at the perfect time to start deepening your understanding of ontology, epistemology and their relationship to the growth of your worldviews.

Best wishes!

 

[Breakingthewall]

6 hours ago, VeganAwake said:

When you say "fact of being", what are you referring to? The body? The mind? Both?

Th fact of existing is what remains when all constructs disappear. Body and mind as concepts are constructs. This doesn't mean that constructs are false or illusory; that's very confusing. It means that they are constructs that the psyche inevitably creates in its process of formation, just as the body creates cells and organs.

The psyche is based on these constructs, which in turn are founded on an unyielding emotional system that compels you to draw absolute lines between good and bad. All the conceptual system that we create as a humans is a natural and inevitable function of what we are.

Btw "consciousness" is a construction. "Fact of being" is also a construction but it's the minimal construction possible. Consciousness implies duality, even they say "pure empty consciousness" pure against polluted, empty against full....mess everywhere for confusing readers who believe: ohhhhh he's so holy, I also want pure empty shit. Call me adya. 

6 hours ago, VeganAwake said:

would describe it like the psyche gets intertwined with identity, and then everything feels/becomes personal.

I'd say that the psyche is the identity between other factors like the idea of the group, what's good and bad, etc. Animals have not psyche or at least not symbolic psyche, have direct instinct to function in the world.

We have learned psyche, and that psyche is as you say intertwined with identity because your life depends on it. It's a reality, if you are in some places and you say Muhammad is shit you will die, or if you see that you are very ugly you wont reproduce, this trigger emotional reactions because it's a reality, not an illusion. 

Edited 1 hour ago by Breakingthewall

[Breakingthewall]

6 hours ago, kavaris said:

I'll say that the layered, lego castle of construction, the temple which is in a constant state of change, it is always in an upwards or downwards direction, and that is kindve, by in large, what it seems like, a constant rebuilding of function, meaning and form, in order to then take what we see as the *clumps of patterns, and connect them further (or reconnect, reduplicate em, etc.), into the larger whole.

Yes could be a layered lego castle but it's real, it's an expression of the reality, same than your bones or an atom. The point of enlightenment is not realizing that the self is an illusion, that's craziness because who realizes that is the self itself. The point is being open to the nature of the reality, self included, and who is open is the self, a stone is not open to the nature of the reality, it is that nature without consciousness of it, but a self is self referential and it's what we call conscious, then can put the objects aside and be conscious of the absolute fact of being. But that doesn't mean that the forms are false. "False" is a form. The absolute being is what the form "false" and any other form ultimately are. 

Edited 1 hour ago by Breakingthewall

[Breakingthewall]

1 hour ago, oOo said:

@Breakingthewall You're at the perfect time to start deepening your understanding of ontology, epistemology and their relationship to the growth of your worldviews.

Best wishes!

 

Don't be lazy 😅 put some concrete example about the topic