You are existence, a logical explanation (video)

[Mu_]

Its funny I made this video yesterday, and today there are like three topics wondering about existence.  Interesting coincidence, hmmm.  Let me know why you all think, its a good subject to really get into, debate and get to the actual bottom of.

 

[Someone here]

My mind at 3 am ?

[impulse9]

It's a mystery. If you think you know, you don't know. That is the rule.

[Someone here]

9 minutes ago, impulse9 said:

It's a mystery. If you think you know, you don't know. That is the rule.

What if you know that you don't know?  Do you then know or don't know? 

[impulse9]

@Someone here Don't confuse semantical mazes for wisdom.

[LastThursday]

@Mu_ what hit me is, is existence plural or singular?

If singular then what is it that is existing, it must be one unindividuated whole? If plural then how can one part of existence be compared to another part of existence, what is the commonality? In other words, we look around and see existence everywhere, despite seeing lots of different things. What is common between a chair and a bear? What is "knowing" existence?

Edited September 8, 2021 by LastThursday

[Someone here]

4 minutes ago, impulse9 said:

@Someone here Don't confuse semantical mazes for wisdom.

It's amusing because you can collapse the duality of knowing - not knowing into being or direct manifestation. 

So literally no one knows a goddamn thing. Because existence is prior to knowing. It's just "it". 

[impulse9]

@Someone here Yes. And even that's a concept. Reality isn't a concept.

[Mu_]

1 hour ago, LastThursday said:

@Mu_ what hit me is, is existence plural or singular?

If singular then what is it that is existing, it must be one unindividuated whole? If plural then how can one part of existence be compared to another part of existence, what is the commonality? In other words, we look around and see existence everywhere, despite seeing lots of different things. What is common between a chair and a bear? What is "knowing" existence?

It really doesn't matter, and this is the deep part, whats being pointed to is not "something" either plural or singular existing, but the fact of existence is prime, everything shares that constant.

Really let in the implication that existing has never not been the case.  Let go of the minds desire to then go what is existing then, and see its not that somethings or one thing is existing, existence itself is the irreducible.

Once this is understood, the implications are really worth investigating.

One question that seems to be core to your question is "stuff".  Well lets just go along those lines of assumption.  If there were stuff, where would it come from or "get there".  Well from existence of course.....  Because stuff does not come from "other" places or other "stuff" to make it.  So what would "stuff" be made of, again existence, which isn't a "stuff".   

Okay, if you've really let this in, then the next profound connection is, well then whats asking the questions, whats living and breathing supposedly reading this right now.....  Existence of course, what else could it be.. lol.

[Mu_]

2 hours ago, impulse9 said:

It's a mystery. If you think you know, you don't know. That is the rule.

Sure theres a mystery to all this and thats a beautiful and terrifying aspect, but don't overlook the simplicity and implications of mystery/existence being the only Reality.

You, the spouter of rules and beliefs such as if you think you know, you don't know, is existence, reading, arguing, replying.....  what else could be happening  

[LastThursday]

Thanks @Mu_ I have an intuition about what I was trying to get across, but something is lost in translation to text. But let's see if I can get to the gist of it for fun.

Some disconnected points:

1. Assume the that contents of existence is the same as existence itself. It's like a car is made up of wheels, engine, chassis (all content); but isn't the wheels, engine, chassis just the car itself? So is the car one thing or many? There doesn't seem to be much commonality between a wheel and an engine. Maybe there's many types of existence: wheel existence and engine existence and chassis existence and they're all different?

2. Do we define existence to be prime, or is existence self-evident, or is existence just a word pointing to something indescribable? If existence is self-evident, then the "self" in "self evident" must also be in existence. Does existence define itself? Weird.

3. When you say "existence" I think I know what it means. How is that possible? I don't think someone has ever sat me down and given me an explanation for the word. Is my "existence" really what you're talking about?

I don't know I'm more talking to myself here. Maybe one for the journal. Thanks!

[Mu_]

On 9/8/2021 at 3:10 PM, LastThursday said:

Thanks @Mu_ I have an intuition about what I was trying to get across, but something is lost in translation to text. But let's see if I can get to the gist of it for fun.

Some disconnected points:

1. Assume the that contents of existence is the same as existence itself. It's like a car is made up of wheels, engine, chassis (all content); but isn't the wheels, engine, chassis just the car itself? So is the car one thing or many? There doesn't seem to be much commonality between a wheel and an engine. Maybe there's many types of existence: wheel existence and engine existence and chassis existence and they're all different?

2. Do we define existence to be prime, or is existence self-evident, or is existence just a word pointing to something indescribable? If existence is self-evident, then the "self" in "self evident" must also be in existence. Does existence define itself? Weird.

3. When you say "existence" I think I know what it means. How is that possible? I don't think someone has ever sat me down and given me an explanation for the word. Is my "existence" really what you're talking about?

I don't know I'm more talking to myself here. Maybe one for the journal. Thanks!

Existence is existence, its not a "something" that exists.  Nor is it a function of sub or simultaneous  elements to create the actuality called existence.

If you can get to this on a quality level or even a very firm philosophical level that is certain, and not just one of the many possibilities, then the next interesting question to ask is, what does this mean about a so called something called Time.

 

If you can see and understand that existence truely is the case, this means there is no so called time in which existence didn't exist, theres no before it, and there is no moment in which there is a after existence.  Time literally doesn't exist except as a "experience or imagination".  There's no, "existence started 1 trillion years ago", there for there is time in which things have happened, with befores and afters and laters.  There literally hasn't been a moment of time, with a moment after or before.  What you think you just read didn't happen in a actual something called time and there isn't a later time when you are done with this paragraph, its only Now that anything Is.

Of course the experience of time may or may not continue to be experienced and this is fine either way, to try and convince yourself its there or not there may just keep your mind in a constant rejection of experience,  the goal of life is not to see past this.  Time can be a relatively enjoyable type of experience and of course it can be painful as well.

Perhaps its useful to use what I'm pointing to as a reminder to help you not get caught up in conflicts with time and reality when it feels so painfully certain.