Someone here

A question to Leo

300 posts in this topic

@Dodo i get where you coming from and im certainly open to the possibility that there is more, but after a direct experience of what I can best describe is GOD, you get really sceptical that anything is outside of IT, not saying this human form is all that there is. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And I would like to add one thing, for those of you who have not experienced a total breakthrough trip should not go on here claiming it is a distraction/waste of time and that you can't know more about conciousness,  well hate to break it to you but you can, you can confirm for yourself the things enlightened masters have said about Being and reality. But ofcourse a sober state is best. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Nahm said:

@seeking_brilliance

Weeeellllll :) Nice to see somebody’s actually awake on this thread. 

(For the cheap seats...just kidding) 

@Someone here

Nah, just having a weird dream


My Imagination is a Monastery and I am its Monk- John Keats

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
35 minutes ago, Mu_ said:

Sounds like you may be having similar hookups to Someonehere, so I thought I'd share with you what I shared with him.

...

simply ask

I don't have similar "hookups" and I advise you to listen to your contradictor(s) in this thread.

Because you can of course be simply wrong, appeals to simplicity will not protect anyone from delusion. Quite the contrary. I don't mean to single you out (there are worst offenders in this thread) but you aren't speaking from experience when you're misusing language in order to argue for unwarranted conclusions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 minutes ago, Adamq8 said:

And I would like to add one thing, for those of you who have not experienced a total breakthrough trip should not go on here claiming it is a distraction/waste of time and that you can't know more about conciousness,  well hate to break it to you but you can, you can confirm for yourself the things enlightened masters have said about Being and reality. But ofcourse a sober state is best. 

btw I am in no way claiming that there is nothing to discover or to drop this, I am all for it and I am on this journey. I am playing  angel's advocate here and saying something extreme. That The IS US, the GOD you've known as allness, allthatisness, beingness, Everythingness is still not Absolute. Absolute is BEYOND That. The GOD beyond the God. The GOD which can never be KNOWN, even by the God of Awareness. By all means this journey is absolutely fantastic. But lets remove the arrogance from this. The God of unknowing will always remain hidden, even to itself. Absolute is more absolute than the absolute. I cannot know this, but I somehow know this. Might sound jibberish and coming from ignorance, but I have touched something, I have touched the Heart and it says : HUMBLE BOYYY HUMBLE! DONT SAY YOU KNOW. 

 

36 minutes ago, Adamq8 said:

@Dodo i get where you coming from and im certainly open to the possibility that there is more, but after a direct experience of what I can best describe is GOD, you get really sceptical that anything is outside of IT, not saying this human form is all that there is. 

That's a great attitude to have. What if the GOD experienced is just as ignorant as the ignorant person, just on a whole nother level. We are talking locationless and timeless here. There is enough space in the Absolute for a deluded Everything, deluded GOD. No one knows what is meant when we point to this word. 

 lets enjoy this, in both knowing and not knowing. Both duality and nonduality.

Edited by Dodo

Not Even One
The devil is in the detail
Our true North is Love

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, commie said:

I don't have similar "hookups" and I advise you to listen to your contradictor(s) in this thread.

Because you can of course be simply wrong, appeals to simplicity will not protect anyone from delusion. Quite the contrary. I don't mean to single you out (there are worst offenders in this thread) but you aren't speaking from experience when you're misusing language in order to argue for unwarranted conclusions.

??  Did I tag you or something in the post?  By the way your responding it feels like it. Either way if I did, which it doesn't look I did, it wasn't directed at you.  Anyways, lay out what you mean by I'm simply wrong, lol, how is this any different then your accusation if your not willing to lay out any information from your side?

But again how can it simply be wrong that "something or nothing or how ever you want to parse or phrase this moment of happening as you comprehend these words" is not happening?  I'm not giving any cosmology or ontology about such or defining anything as god or nondual, again just pointing to the validity of there's obviously something going on.  If there actually is objectively a cosmology or ontology that is responsible for this "something", then walla, thats whats taking/taken place.  And if "....something...." doesn't objectively line up with a cosmology/ontology, well walla, thats whats happening....

Are you saying there is actually a way in which things are Absolutely/Objectively/Non-Objectively (again which I'm not defining), that isn't in some way connected or responsible for this obvious "something" you and I can agree is being experienced?


Does this make sense?

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Mu_ said:

@Someone here Something I made a video on that connects to this conversation is what do you call something that depends on something else to be called anything to begin with.  Check out my link and open the video about "what is fear, what is anything", should be at the top.

Basically is a human a human, or do atoms make up humans?  Is it both?  Or is a human dependent on a combination of environment, oxygen, water, earth, gravity, big bang, blood, microorganism, etc....   Are they all true, or does the most underlying "something" define everything?

Like for example if a human is made up of atoms, its not a human, its atoms labeled as a human....  

Or if its both, because you can see both a human and the atoms at the same time, what then do you call either if they are the same at the same time? (this ones a kicker, a real mind fuck that I think your looking for)

Watched the video, I dont want to type it all here, it adds a lot of food for thought to this question you originally asked.

 

Very interesting. Thanks for sharing. I watched your video. 

So basically to sum up you're saying the human =the atoms.  Not that a human is made of atoms.  In the same way consciousness is all the layers.. Not that consciousness is made of different layers.  Is that what you're saying? 


Silence is the highest teaching. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Mu_ said:

Did I tag you or something in the post? ... Anyways, lay out what you mean by I'm simply wrong, lol, how is this any different then your accusation if your not willing to lay out any information from your side?

No, you didn't tag me or something. I also didn't say you were wrong. My only accusation was about the way you're using language (and again, it's not just you) so information doesn't come into it.

2 hours ago, Mu_ said:

Are you saying there is actually a way in which things are Absolutely/Objectively/Non-Objectively (again which I'm not defining), that isn't in some way connected or responsible for this obvious "something" you and I can agree is being experienced?

No. For what it's worth, "in some way connected" is broad enough to encompass my perspective.

But while we might agree about the theory if we bothered to formulate it rigorously, I don't think it is at all obvious that we actually experience the same (no)thing. In fact, I don't know that you experience anything at all and our agreement wouldn't help considering a computer can be programmed to agree for instance. I merely believe that our experiences are similar.

2 hours ago, Mu_ said:

But again how can it simply be wrong that ...

The problem is with the "simply ask" part I highlighted. Namely, "could what ever the mystery of whats going on, not be going during the inquiry of doing so". As has already been pointed out, you're effectively assuming your non-dual conclusion. It's hidden within appeals to simplicity and other verbal ornaments but that was the central argument of your post, isn't it? Certainly I'd say that's been the central issue this whole discussion about layers, infinity and whatnot revolves upon.

Edited by commie
making sure I'm not mistaken for a solipsist

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Someone here said:

Very interesting. Thanks for sharing. I watched your video. 

So basically to sum up you're saying the human =the atoms.  Not that a human is made of atoms.  In the same way consciousness is all the layers.. Not that consciousness is made of different layers.  Is that what you're saying? 

The video is made more to stimulate frames of understanding how perspectives see and contextualize stuff and leave you with feeling the depths of such possibility and coming closer to your understanding. Perhaps my own take is also coming out as well which is in the realm of what you estimated. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, commie said:

No, you didn't tag me or something. I also didn't say you were wrong. My only accusation was about the way you're using language (and again, it's not just you) so information doesn't come into it.

No. For what it's worth, "in some way connected" is broad enough to encompass my perspective.

But while we might agree about the theory if we bothered to formulate it rigorously, I don't think it is at all obvious that we actually experience the same (no)thing. In fact, I don't know that you experience anything at all and our agreement wouldn't help considering a computer can be programmed to agree for instance. I merely believe that our experiences are similar.

The problem is with the "simply ask" part I highlighted. Namely, "could what ever the mystery of whats going on, not be going during the inquiry of doing so". As has already been pointed out, you're effectively assuming your non-dual conclusion. It's hidden within appeals to simplicity and other verbal ornaments but that was the central argument of your post, isn't it? Certainly I'd say that's been the central issue this whole discussion about layers, infinity and whatnot revolves upon.

Could you go more into detail how I’m wrong, or do you just not agree, it would help me better respond. 

I’m not sure what a nondual conclusion is.  But I can see how you may be interpreting what I’m broadly inferring as nondual since as you’ve highlighted in your second paragraph that you can’t be sure, of much. 

However what is this being sure I’m not a computer, you serious, are also saying your not sure your a computer?  Anyways it doesn’t matter either way, a computer being and answering would in the same validate “somethings” .....happening?.... or do computers float around independently of environments or foundational systems or properties, like a One-nondual computer machine, which I’m not saying but if it was, that would fall into what an ontology/cosmology is and would be the answer of what’s behind the “something” happening.  

Or wouldn’t this supposed computer answering indicate that it’s connected in the broadest sense to a larger layer of stuff making “computer” possible.  Again  pointing to what I’m saying, “something” is happening and is broadly connected to anything.  

 

Also if we are both computers, then did a computer think up this thought experiment you used to prove me wrong, lol. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All I'm saying is that you could be wrong, in at least two ways:

Most obviously, there could be some kind of separation within a united "something" preventing us from being aware of this "something". That's what the mainstream physicalist account of our experience amounts to so I assume you're familiar with its implications: the "mystery" would indeed be going on during the "inquiry" but the unstated part of your argument would not follow. That is, there would be at least two layers, something outside of any infinity you perceive and so forth.

But while physicalism guarantees a kind of unity (quite possibly encompassing all there is) foundational to our experiences , if we're not going as you've argued to make any assumptions about "something" then there is no reason to assume such a unity. Perhaps the "mystery" stops before the "inquiry" or perhaps they're separated in other ways. If anything is possible, what do we know?

4 minutes ago, Mu_ said:

do computers float around independently of environments or foundational systems or properties

The programs do, in principle at least. The whole point of a general-purpose computer is that you can run different programs on it, which also means you could run its program on a completely different (and possibly completely separate) general-purpose computer. Though it would be a poor design, a computer could for instance run the "mystery" program for a millisecond then switch to the "inquiry" program and then back to the "mystery" again...

Whether an experience such has ours can be the product of a computer program or not, I was only talking about behavior (programs can for instance produce words which can fool us into believing we're talking to someone like us as opposed to a crude artifice).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, commie said:

All I'm saying is that you could be wrong, in at least two ways:

Most obviously, there could be some kind of separation within a united "something" preventing us from being aware of this "something". That's what the mainstream physicalist account of our experience amounts to so I assume you're familiar with its implications: the "mystery" would indeed be going on during the "inquiry" but the unstated part of your argument would not follow. That is, there would be at least two layers, something outside of any infinity you perceive and so forth.

But while physicalism guarantees a kind of unity (quite possibly encompassing all there is) foundational to our experiences , if we're not going as you've argued to make any assumptions about "something" then there is no reason to assume such a unity. Perhaps the "mystery" stops before the "inquiry" or perhaps they're separated in other ways. If anything is possible, what do we know?

The programs do, in principle at least. The whole point of a general-purpose computer is that you can run different programs on it, which also means you could run its program on a completely different (and possibly completely separate) general-purpose computer. Though it would be a poor design, a computer could for instance run the "mystery" program for a millisecond then switch to the "inquiry" program and then back to the "mystery" again...

Whether an experience such has ours can be the product of a computer program or not, I was only talking about behavior (programs can for instance produce words which can fool us into believing we're talking to someone like us as opposed to a crude artifice).

Ok interesting, new stuff to answer.

Ok I'll start with the last one first.

Where would supposed computers that are seperate from each other, running individual programs that creates our experience of "inquiry" and "mystery" be housed?  Somewhere I'd imagine in which "something" is happening.  

Ok, to your first paragraph, which the above answer kinda answers.  Even if there is infinities outside of perceptions, what does that have to do with the acknowledgement now that "something" is happening.

And to your doubtful physicalism paragraph, hmmm, so your saying its possible for there to be like a cosmology/ontology that goes to a point, then stops, and then something later appears called you and me talking with no connection to the original ontology/cosmology and no connection to a new foundation or anything?  Sounds like your making up 4+3 could equal 15 just because you thought about it in your mind and it made sense (no offense). 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, commie said:

 That's what the mainstream physicalist account of our experience amounts to so I assume you're familiar with its implications: the "mystery" would indeed be going on during the "inquiry" but the unstated part of your argument would not follow. That is, there would be at least two layers, something outside of any infinity you perceive and so forth.

 

So you don't know, you're just assuming because of what you heard ?


There is a candle in your heart, ready to be kindled
There is a void in your soul, ready to be filled

You feel it, don't you ? - Rumi

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Nahm said:

@seeking_brilliance

So weird! I swear I was having the same dream! Crazy. 

 

We can dream together if you'd like... I'll let you set the rules. 


My Imagination is a Monastery and I am its Monk- John Keats

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, Mu_ said:

And to your doubtful physicalism paragraph, hmmm, so your saying its possible for there to be like a cosmology/ontology that goes to a point, then stops, and then something later appears called you and me talking with no connection to the original ontology/cosmology and no connection to a new foundation or anything?  Sounds like your making up 4+3 could equal 15 just because you thought about it in your mind and it made sense (no offense). 

The fractured "something" is of course not a feature of physicalism which has a non-dual "cosmology/ontology" and merely fractures your direct experience from "something" in a way you can't experience directly.

Of course there must be some kind of connection, or we'd simply have two "somethings" instead of a fractured "something". But this connection could in principle take any form (continuing with the computing analogy, it could for instance involve only partial output and not the program itself) and could already be over (assuming "something" happens in time).

We are both making things up (specifically, sentences) and all we can achieve is making sense. Languages have complicated rules, and as a result we can for instance say that 4+3==7 is true. What I've been claiming here is that you're not following rules which would allow you to say anything conclusive about "something".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, commie said:

The fractured "something" is of course not a feature of physicalism which has a non-dual "cosmology/ontology" and merely fractures your direct experience from "something" in a way you can't experience directly.

Of course there must be some kind of connection, or we'd simply have two "somethings" instead of a fractured "something". But this connection could in principle take any form (continuing with the computing analogy, it could for instance involve only partial output and not the program itself) and could already be over (assuming "something" happens in time).

We are both making things up (specifically, sentences) and all we can achieve is making sense. Languages have complicated rules, and as a result we can for instance say that 4+3==7 is true. What I've been claiming here is that you're not following rules which would allow you to say anything conclusive about "something".

Ya in a sense I get your apprehension, I'm one of the most skepitcal people around as well at one point, and to some degree still.  I mean you seem to be accepting certain certainties/rules like why making sense happens or how language is or works or is part of communication, perhaps you assume autonomy (im not sure), and yes I'm using a form of connection/example/language to form a point.

Perhaps it doesn't make sense to you, which is fine, but I think by your own rules you'd have to prove your rules as well to prove I'm breaking them.

But again, tree's plant seeds, which grow trees, tree's seem to come from earth, earth seems to have come from a galaxy that supposedly was birth from a big bang event, that presumably came from or resulted from "something".  Maybe the chain of connection is broken, but then where would these two instances be in?  "something/somewhere/nowhere" i'd imagine and even if it can't be nailed down I don't know how you could make a sensical argument that the grand "totality, or what ever actual is happening" is not in some way influencing, resulting, connected, responsible (although this is a loaded word), involved with in infinite degree's of seperation, with this moment of possibilty congitizing something on this screen as you read.

Also you said that this possible something could seperate itself because anything is possible, but what would it seperate itself from or with?  ITself I'd imagine since thats all there is and guess what thats not seperation, lol, thats just more continuations of itself and thus still happening now.  If thats not what "something" is then refer to previous paragraph.

Oh to reply to your "The fractured "something" is of course not a feature of physicalism which has a non-dual "cosmology/ontology" and merely fractures your direct experience from "something" in a way you can't experience directly."

You don't need to experience the from "something" directly, the fact that there is "something" is proof of "something" (not saying nondual god, infinity or any particular cosmology/ontology).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Nahm said:

@seeking_brilliance

So weird! I swear I was having the same dream! Crazy. 

 

Rule 1:  have fun

Rule 2: love hard

Rule 3: play hard

Rule 4:look alive 

Rule 5: close your eyes and we'll be together. 

🤷‍♂️ OK I got it out of my system 

Edited by seeking_brilliance

My Imagination is a Monastery and I am its Monk- John Keats

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, integral said:

What if everything your saying is just an insightful way of making sense of existence? How do we differentiate between paradigms?

Is it possible to be paradigm agnostic? 

Everything that exists is your insightful way of making sense of existence. Infinity doesn't follow a certain pattern, only your life story does. There is not some separate truth that you need to find out because everything that happens is dependent on your POV. So you either acknowledge that YOU are the shaper of your own reality, or let reality shape you ad infinitum. Also, shape or form (or whatever expression existence takes) isn't permanent, so your human form isn't reality. Form isn't absolute truth and it doesn't fit any paradigm because it is always changing... yet IT IS NOT separate from the Truth. Obviously, a mortal will not appreciate the depth of this infinity.

8 hours ago, Dodo said:

Logic has nothing to do with it. Your logic will never understand absolute infinity. You don't see how you are limiting the absolute to fit your logical paradigm. Keep weaving stories. Thats not truth, thats arrogance and clinging. 

Accept you do not know and will never know. That's true knowledge. It doesn't mean you can't know. It means you will never know all. It means to be humble and to be able to surrender to God. 

God will separate the poison from the milk. I do not pretend to know and I am not claiming godhood.

Let he who claims godhood explain why I am saying what im saying and not what they want.

Logic alone will not help you understand absolute infinity. I see you're using a word that implies knowledge, so who's arrogant and clinging to the limited human perspective? You expect me to say that we're human and perceive all there is. Great, what's next?

What is there to know, tell me.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now