Materialism is complete BS

[Willy Phallicus]

Afternoon God.  Just left the cave after 30 years of daily 12 hour meditation.  Man am I hungry.

Just wondering where we stand on the supermodels and huge lottery win.  Since its always now - now seems like a good time.

[yetineti]

@Yimpa 

Nothing does not exist. What would stop nothing from becoming something? Nothing. What would start it? Nothing.

Your car is your car. Imagination is not so weak and bleak as to creating a flat daft illusion of anything. It’s creating it actually.

It created a car. It has not created nothing or anything as just ideas.

Everything is real.

Edited 2 hours ago by yetineti

[kavaris]

A Jehovahs witness came to my door today, And he said something that got me thinkin, it was something bout like, letting others do... something, or something for ya, but in a way that was appropriate to the bible, And its like, i dont understand how to even begin to think about reality in that way where its like, letting go, or taking control, besides from what i know, however i can answer some of these questions, such as,

28 minutes ago, yetineti said:

Nothing does not exist. What would stop nothing from becoming something? Nothing. What would start it? Nothing.

This is one of those technical ideas, that people get mixed up in, because its assumed nothing defines the all pervaiding force that is consciousness and its content. However, dont think of it in them terms
Think of it like, everything always just "exists" because of consciousness, and no thing, depending on context, isnt something you have directly experienced, in this moment, which is important, otherwise you can stop the questioning, cause we are experiencing, we are seeing something via conscious exp., and its neither something as simple as, "ts all real, for me", but nor is it as simple as calling it nothing ... As "things" most often speak of "the content of experience", but somehow, you want to ask about "experience itself", without tackling the question directly.

 

[kavaris]

(cont.) im just waking from a quik nap, but thats like, the foundation for everything. And depending how you want to define the things in experience, those things may also be treated as no things, but its in a totally new context, cause we would be talking about "what causes something to go from idea to physical thing", whereby, theres a spectrum of things we could say, tech., they dont exist, but they CAN exist, and in some way they even DO exist, and will exist in the future. Hence it being a spectrum of existence, in that way (thats a diff question of course, cause before, we were simply asking, "is it all real, and by that same token, what does realness mean... or in my opinion, what does it mean to "imagine" so much that it feels real, is a, possibly, better question, possibly)

Edited 2 hours ago by kavaris

[Joseph Maynor]

What is materialism?  

[Yimpa]

Human is not conscious. Consciousness is hallucinating human.

“Butt Yimpa!”

Don’t Butt Yimpa me  

Edited 2 hours ago by Yimpa

[Joseph Maynor]

Just now, Yimpa said:

Human is not conscious. Consciousness is hallucinating human.

Whose consciousness?

[Yimpa]

1 minute ago, Joseph Maynor said:

Whose consciousness?

Only consciousness! I don’t have a monopoly on God. God is in and as everything.

This is the problem with current science. It does a great job explaining what human (or anything) is, but it cannot understand how the human (or anything) is imaginary.

[Joseph Maynor]

1 minute ago, Yimpa said:

Only consciousness! I don’t have a monopoly on God. God is in and as everything.

This is the problem with current science. It does a great job explaining what human (or anything) is, but it cannot understand how the human (or anything) is imaginary.

Is this a belief?  

[kavaris]

13 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

What is materialism?  

I agree... if only to say, "things" in the material world, are very difficult to pin down, however, even going back one more notch to talk about what the material world is, i still dont know what it is, ever. Which gives rise to all of these possibilities, and ways to define / describe experience and reality. In some sense, i have a better idea of what it feels like, than i do an idea of what it is, when its just a purely physical sandbox, i mean, i dont rven know what a physical sandbox could be, its just something to use as a landmark for now.

5 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

Whose consciousness?

Good one. I would say.... Probably nothing. Nothing is consciousness. But i would say, in the sympathetic circle, where nothing is becoming the new God, i would reshuffle it to say, "Being", is just existing, and things just spring up willy nilly, granted no thing is alwaysthis looming possibility, but its alongside separation -sortve in anabsolute realm that, isnt even really something that can be explored in a day, its the obvious foundation, for a world that will, and is,always existing, so long as its like, being conscious in this moment, i mean...

At some point weve reached as much as we can on that front, As i see another subject matter on the horizon, speaking to this weird, neverending cycle -thing.

Edited 1 hour ago by kavaris

[Willy Phallicus]

2 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

Is this a belief?  

Gnowledge.

[kavaris]

We can name the thing, we can experience it, unravel it, but can we understand it as the unravelling is recycling itself (and can we do it without directly viewing the content, since thats what is causing the endless cycle of content)

[Joseph Maynor]

1 minute ago, Willy Phallicus said:

Gnowledge.

Something to talk about at a minimum LOL.  

[kavaris]

2 minutes ago, kavaris said:

We can name the thing, we can experience it, unravel it, but can we understand it as the unravelling is recycling itself (and can we do it without directly viewing the content, since thats what is causing the endless cycle of content)

I mean this is part of the problem i always have, which is like, these cycles, some are meant to be,  and then, some are troublesome (...like... just in a pragmatic sense of the word) and other times, i just dont even get it. And thats the pretzel of frustration. Trying to understand it in both directions, or something... i dont even know, its a pretzel.

[kavaris]

^n/m. ignore that. Thats an unsolvable pretzel. Ignore that.

[kavaris]

If anything, it draws attention to cycles. Like Bicycles, the company (n/m)

The point is, that there are these cycles that give rise to anything. But its not like we can say much on it anyway, like theres not one universal way to speak of it, but it gets yas thinking, those whove been here already, cause yous prolly understand it.

Anyone new here wont even know what it means anyway. We can assume that, we all have long winded contemplation journals describing such things.

Edited 1 hour ago by kavaris

[Willy Phallicus]

14 minutes ago, Joseph Maynor said:

Something to talk about at a minimum LOL.  

Assuming you've had the gnosis experience it goes one of two ways.  Either you rarely or never talk about it or you can't shut up about it.

I think I can grasp what camp we are in.

[Joseph Maynor]

1 minute ago, Willy Phallicus said:

Assuming you've had the gnosis experience it goes one of two ways.  Either you rarely or never talk about it or you can't shut up about it.

I think I can grasp what camp we are in.

Um Hm.  

[Carl-Richard]

12 hours ago, Vilius said:

Recently, after diving back into Leo’s videos on naive realism and reading through his booklist, it finally hit me: reality is mental, and appearance IS reality.

There is also something called naive idealism. What do you mean by "appearance"? What do you lay in the notion of Maya/illusion? What do you make of visual illusions, the fact that our sense perceptions are adaptable/changeable depending on circumstance (e.g. you no longer feel your butt as much in the chair after sitting for a while, or if you keep a finger in cold water after a while it no longer feels as cold), that they are limited and only capture so much, etc.?

 

12 hours ago, Vilius said:

Also, I have a question, doe's society truly need scientists to tell people that flower is bunch of atoms?? I mean you can directly experience the flower and know what it is, why we need some scientists come and tell what it is, child know what flower and dirt is better than scientists. I had a discussion with a friend and he seems like that he needs  clings to scientific explanation what things are, it's crazy most people aswell, is it like collective delusion?

You can still describe things even if reality is mental. That's fundamentally what science does. It's just that materialists additionally create some mysterious substance called "matter" that nobody has ever seen and cling to that as a metaphysical paradigm. "Matter" is in reality a description of mental states. Whether or not you assign an ontological status to it doesn't change this fact (you're always conceding that you ultimately only have access to your mental states per Descartes, unless you're some idiot who doesn't know up from down).

Edited 1 hour ago by Carl-Richard

[Joseph Maynor]

Silliness only goes so far.