If you are the only Mind then why are you talking to others on this forum?

[kamwalker]

1 hour ago, Inliytened1 said:

Absolutely!!!! It makes it even BETTER once you get over the shock of the recontexualization of realizing you are God.  Because that's basically what realizing that others exist within your own Mind is.  (Again, the Godhead not the ego mind) It's the realization that you are God and this universe is all yours.  The bliss cannot be fathomed.

I can't understand how people here say they are conscious of being God and yet aren't happy. Something is missing within your knowing if this is the case. 

[Nivsch]

@zurew How can you get an "infinite mind" or "infinite indentity"?

And its ok stage yellow sounds good to me ?

What approach would you use to deal with reality problem? What would you do practically speaking?

Edited March 17, 2022 by Nivsch

[zurew]

Just now, Nivsch said:

How can you get an "infinite mind" or "infinite indentity"?

From this sober state, It seems like we need to recognize certain patterns and then using those recognitions to be able to achieve different states of mind. We need to play along these causality factors to be able to alter our minds from this sober state. We are sort of trapped here in our own 'hell'. This hell has its own characteristics and features, and to be able to break out of it, you need to play along those features.

Psychedelics is one tool to get there, but of course you can use other tools as well. The reason why i stress altering your mind states, because if you radically alter your mind states, you change your identity as well. Shattering your finite ego, and then realising that you are infinite. Only using an infinite mind you can recognize that you are infinite. The closest you can get to know what reality is by becoming reality.

I can never know what being Nivsch is, or how it feels like using this finite state. I can use an infinite set of metrics but it will still be reductive. Only by becoming you i can truly know, what it feels like to be Nivsch.

You can always make bigger models of reality and use the subject-object dynamic, but there will be always a line between you and reality. That line is making the sensemaking process impossible if we want to know reality existentially.

So you can go from two places.

• The first place is when you assume that you can't know reality, because you are finite, so you can only make more and more complex models of reality.
• The second place is when you recognise, that if you want to know reality or yourself fully/existentially, then you need an infinitely big perspective to be as accurate as possible. This is the same with yourself, only using an infinite mind to make sense of yourself can be used to get as accurate image about yourself as possible.

So we can go deeper and ask ourselves, how can i alter my state of consciousness so it can be as big as possible? I assume i can reach infinite conciousness, the reason why i assume that because i know, thats the only thing that can give me the clearest answers for the 'reality' and for the 'me' problem. So you eventually experiment with it using hardcore meditation or yoga practices, or using hardcore psychedelics and then you get there.

2 minutes ago, Nivsch said:

What approach you would use to deal with reality problem? What would you do practically speaking?

Becoming infinite/realising that you are  infinite and then reflecting on yourself. This is practically speaking either doing super hardcore meditation/yoga practices for a certain amount of time or taking a certain dose of  5meo DMT to be able to break this finite ego down.

[Inliytened1]

On 3/16/2022 at 7:10 PM, kamwalker said:

I can't understand how people here say they are conscious of being God and yet aren't happy. Something is missing within your knowing if this is the case. 

Thats because they are not actually  conscious of being God.   They took it as a belief.  They're not awake.

[thisintegrated]

I roleplay a human.  Humans are social creatures.

 

If I start meditating a lot I don't come here for months.  But sooner or later I get bored and come here to write pointless essays.

This place is basically just entertainment like anything else, like anime or video games.

 

If I was more consistent with my meditation I'd probably definitely be here far less often.  I guess I'm not mature enough yet to completely drop this forum.

[Gesundheit2]

14 hours ago, zurew said:

How did u come to the conclusion that neither of those are true?

It's not a conclusion, only the basics;

Assumption: (noun) A hypothesis that is taken for granted.

14 hours ago, zurew said:

So you are suggesting that the sober state is infinite and the psychedelic state is finite. Explain that, because that doesn't make much sense to me.

I did not suggest that. These are two different assumptions, so my answer is the same as above.

14 hours ago, zurew said:

Truth: knowing what you actually are. We can start with that.

Well, that's the problem right there. How you think of truth is not the same as the conventional layman meaning of the word.

Truth: n., pl. truths (tro̅o̅tz, tro̅o̅ths). 1. the true or actual state of a matter: to tell the truth. 2. conformity with fact or reality; verity: to check the truth of a statement. 3. a verified or indisputable fact, proposition, principle, or the like: mathematical truths.

You're basically inventing your own vocabulary and speaking a foreign language instead of speaking the same language. So, either you're unable to speak the conventional language because you're on a different frequency. Or you can speak it but need some care in your communication, which I hope is the case.

For me, I can relate to what you mean, but unfortunately I probably can't communicate with you effectively because this may be a generalized situation with you. The thing is that I don't have the ability to assess how many of the words you use have a weird, non-conventional meaning. The problem does not stop there, because you have actually more than once put words in my mouth without me actually saying or implying them. So when I talk you're understanding different things from what I actually mean. Like for example when I said the assumptions aren't true, you thought I meant the opposite is true, which I didn't say, or imply.

So in order for us to communicate properly we need to translate every word until we reach a consensus on what you mean and what I mean, and that could be really hard and take a lot of time, let alone ending successfully. So I hope you take the time to tackle down this issue before going any further.

14 hours ago, zurew said:

Why do you place more value on your sober state compared to a psychedelic state? You are trying to call others out on placing more value on a psychedelic state but at the same time you are doing the same with sober state. That seemingness and doubt coming from a sober state. You are clearly playing the hierarchy game and the same time telling yourself ,that you are not.

All your logic and reason flies out the window, once you change radically your state. Again, you are trying to wrap this all up in logic, assuming you can. You haven't tried any serious psychedelic, and at the same time you are saying from your sober state, that this and that in your opinion can't be known. If you are serious enough you should try different approaches out.

The very 'i don't know if i can know what actually i am' notion  is coming from this sober state. Again you are placing more value on this one, compared to the other ones. All your tools that you are using are in wrapped in this state (your logic, using reason etc). But at the same time you are trying to tell yourself, that you don't put more value on this state than on the other ones.

You asked me who I am, and I answered according to my experience. If I was in a different state, I may reply differently.

Whatever the answer might be, it counts as data to me. The data paradigm that I am using combines data from all states and doesn't take one state to be of more importance than another. It's actually you who is seeking to know that is actually trying to find which state is more important and truthful. Notice that, then excuse me from your projection.

14 hours ago, zurew said:

Have you questioned ever, that 'reality is unknowable' or that 'I am unknowable' ? 

Asking again because you have dodged it twice now: How can you know, that 'I am unknowable' or that 'reality is unknowable'? On what basis you are saying that? Whatever base you are using for that, that is at the top of your truth hierarchy.

Dodged?

Look dude. Apparently, you assume too much and aren't aware that you do so. And on top of that your assumptions seem to be blinding you from seeing what I'm actually saying.

I said there's only data and no such thing as knowledge. I am denying knowledge as a whole, so both of the questions you're asking are irrelevant to me. Every thought and assumption can be doubted, so there is no such thing as knowledge.

[zurew]

16 hours ago, Gesundheit2 said:

You're assuming that the sober state is actually finite and that the psychedelic state is actually infinite. I will inform you that neither of these assumptions is true

59 minutes ago, Gesundheit2 said:

It's not a conclusion, only the basics;

Assumption: (noun) A hypothesis that is taken for granted.

When you said that 'You're assuming that the sober state is actually finite and that the psychedelic state is actually infinite. I will inform you that neither of these assumptions is true'. The  'neither of these assumptions is true'  statement need to be true in order to falsify my statements about the sober mind being finite and limited. So on the hierarchy of perspectives it needs to be upper compared to my statement. So again you can't escape the hierarchy.

59 minutes ago, Gesundheit2 said:

For me, I can relate to what you mean, but unfortunately I probably can't communicate with you effectively because this may be a generalized situation with you.

You act like i use a whole different kind of vocabulary compared to you or anyone here. Its not the case. Just because we didn't have the same definition in our heads for God or for Truth that does not mean, that we can't find a common ground.

59 minutes ago, Gesundheit2 said:

You asked me who I am, and I answered according to my experience. If I was in a different state, I may reply differently.

Whatever the answer might be, it counts as data to me. The data paradigm that I am using combines data from all states and doesn't take one state to be of more importance than another. 

So you are trying to give every perspective the same level of significance. Do you think that your perspective, have more significance compared to mine?

if you are using the 'every perspective need to be treated like they have the same significance' ,then why do you give more significance to perspective 1 compared to perspective 2.

perspective 1: Every perspective need to be treated like they have the same level of significance

vs

perspective 2: Not every perspective should be treated like they have the same level of significance.

There following two perspectives are about knowing yourself:

• There is this perspective that you can know what/who You actually are.
• There is this other perspective that You can't know yourself because everything can be doubted. --> You are leaning towards this perspective, so you are biased towards it and you are not treating every perspective the same as you claim.

59 minutes ago, Gesundheit2 said:

It's actually you who is seeking to know that is actually trying to find which state is more important and truthful

Yes i am doing that, and i am aware of it, i am doing it on purpose. 

 

59 minutes ago, Gesundheit2 said:

Every thought and assumption can be doubted, so there is no such thing as knowledge.

Then this statement in an of itself can be doubted. You assume if you can doubt something ,then you can't be sure if that thing is really true or not. 

Doubting things is not a special thing to do, you can doubt doubting itself, so it can be defeated in a second.

Using doubting as a special method is not really a good thing if you want to treat everyhing the same. Why would you lean more towards doubting if there is a thing called not doubting. Choosing doubting over not doubting is again a hierarchy.

 

Edited March 17, 2022 by zurew

[Gesundheit2]

27 minutes ago, zurew said:

The  'neither of these assumptions is true'  statement need to be true in order to falsify my statements about the sober mind being finite and limited.

No, it doesn't. Assumptions are still assumptions with or without that statement. That statement only serves to bring awareness to the fact that an assumption is itself, which is true.

Quote

You act like i use a whole different kind of vocabulary compared to you or anyone here. Its not the case. Just because we didn't have the same definition in our heads for God or for Truth that does not mean, that we can't find a common ground.

I told you I can't possibly know your vocabulary, but from what you said so far I can tell we will have a hard time if we keep going in the same direction. We have to agree beforehand to the conventional vocabulary if we are to keep talking, that's an axiom for any fruitful communication. Otherwise, we'll be talking past each other all the time, and we won't know when that happens or doesn't. It generally is the case that people share the same vocabulary or at least very similar ones when they talk, which is why nobody has to declare that rule explicitly.

Quote

So you are trying to give every perspective the same level of significance. Do you think that your perspective, have more significance compared to mine?

Significance is an added feature/quality. I try to see the perspective in its rawest form first, then I may add a particular level of significance to it, or might not.

Quote

if you are using the 'every perspective need to be treated like they have the same significance' ,then why do you give more significance to perspective 1 compared to perspective 2.

perspective 1: Every perspective need to be treated like they have the same level of significance

vs

perspective 2: Not every perspective should be treated like they have the same level of significance.

This is silly mental masturbation.

Quote

There following two perspectives are about knowing yourself:

• There is this perspective that you can know what/who You actually are.
• There is this other perspective that You can't know yourself because everything can be doubted. --> You are leaning towards this perspective, so you are biased towards it and you are not treating every perspective the same as you claim.

The data so far suggests that each and every thought can be doubted. If you can present a thought that cannot be doubted, then by all means bring it up, and I will try to doubt it to the best of my abilities.

Quote

Then this statement in an of itself can be doubted. You assume if you can doubt something ,then you can't be sure if that thing is really true or not. 

Of course it can be doubted. It's just a thought/data and it might be wrong, so again by all means doubt it all you want. It's actually very simple, just bring one thought that cannot be doubted, if you can.

Quote

Doubting things is not a special thing to do, you can doubt doubting itself, so it can be defeated in a second.

How?

Quote

Using doubting as a special method is not really a good thing if you want to treat everyhing the same. Why would you lean more towards doubting if there is a thing called not doubting. Choosing doubting over not doubting is again a hierarchy.

Just because it is called "doubt" doesn't make it a bad thing. Really, all doubting boils down to is inspection. And I think we both value this method, so we don't disagree here.

Edited March 17, 2022 by Gesundheit2

[zurew]

10 minutes ago, Gesundheit2 said:

This is silly mental masturbation.

Nice labeling ,so you don't have to engage with the content in it ever again.

10 minutes ago, Gesundheit2 said:

How?

Doubting is killing itself, Doubt doubting.

11 minutes ago, Gesundheit2 said:

The data so far suggests that each and every thought can be doubted. If you can present a thought that cannot be doubted, then by all means bring it up, and I will try to doubt it to the best of my abilities.

'The data so far suggests that each and every thought can be doubted' doubt that one.

12 minutes ago, Gesundheit2 said:

Just because it is called "doubt" doesn't make it a bad thing. Really, all doubting boils down to is inspection. And I think we both value this method, so we don't disagree here.

Yes i do value doubting to some degree, i did not imply it is a 'bad' thing. However, if everything can be doubted why use it as a tool or standard? If you can apply it to anything (to every sentence, to every thought)  then why you give doubting as a tool any significance whatsoever? How can it serve your self -inquiry?

Being able to doubt things doesn't mean anything - it does not mean that what you doubt is not true.

[Gesundheit2]

1 hour ago, zurew said:

Nice labeling ,so you don't have to engage with the content in it ever again.

Most of post-modernism is mental masturbation, because it's mostly focused on deconstructing language, which is a distraction from the inquiry at hand. In my experience, deconstructing language does not provide any meaningful answers about knowledge. It only creates confusion and distracts from the real questions. I've delved into it before and won't do that again, because it didn't get me anywhere meaningful, rather did the opposite. So yeah, I won't engage in that anymore.

Quote

Doubting is killing itself, Doubt doubting.

'The data so far suggests that each and every thought can be doubted' doubt that one.

See, that's what I was talking about above. This is just a silly language game.

I said in the post right above that I doubt this thought and that I'm open to changing it according to any new data that might come along. That's doubt actually applied to itself, unlike the little loopy game you're suggesting.

Quote

Yes i do value doubting to some degree, i did not imply it is a 'bad' thing.

You literally said it's not a good thing. Here:

2 hours ago, zurew said:

Using doubting as a special method is not really a good thing if you want to treat everyhing the same.

But maybe you assume that I wish to treat everything or all perspectives the same, which I don't.

Quote

However, if everything can be doubted why use it as a tool or standard?

That's like saying if everything can be broken, why use a sledgehammer?

Quote

If you can apply it to anything (to every sentence, to every thought)  then why you give doubting as a tool any significance whatsoever? How can it serve your self -inquiry?

It creates clarity and removes illusions. I think that's enough for our goals here.

Quote

Being able to doubt things doesn't mean anything - it does not mean that what you doubt is not true.

You can create any meaning you want, but you can also doubt that meaning until you reach clarity. It's your choice.

Edited March 17, 2022 by Gesundheit2

[zurew]

2 minutes ago, Gesundheit2 said:

2 hours ago, zurew said:

Using doubting as a special method is not really a good thing if you want to treat everyhing the same.

But maybe you assume that I wish to treat everything or all perspectives the same, which I don't.

Yes, i assumed that, because you were talking about how everything is just data for you, so i thought there is no perspective which has more relevance for you comapared to the other ones. So now you are somwhat agreeing that you actually play the hierarchy game (because you said that you don't treat all perspectives the same).

4 minutes ago, Gesundheit2 said:

Most of post-modernism is mental masturbation, because it's mostly focused on deconstructing language, which is a distraction from the inquiry at hand. In my experience, deconstructing language does not provide any meaningful answers about knowledge.

The real problem here is you don't like to go meta enough. You don't want to apply the tools against themselves (like doubting doubting, or questioning questioning etc) because then you would realise the finite nature of those tools. Maybe it is mental masturbation, or it shows you the nondual nature of life and it shows you that doubting is just one finite tool, and using it can only get you so far.

Notice that you can only think inside your language, you can't think outside of it. Its not good nor bad, it just that it has its own limitations to it , because anything that is potentially outside of the boundaries of your language you can't think about it. If we are staying consistent with the me problem (me problem is : figuring out what you  actually are) ,then using finite structures like logic and language can only give you a finite model of yourself.

Again, you are using finite structures and you are trying to make sense of yourself using those structures. You don't want to go outside of those structures (like letting go of doubting and letting go of using language and human logic to try to figure yourself out that way).

7 minutes ago, Gesundheit2 said:

It creates clarity and removes illusions. There's more to it, but I think that's enough for our goals here.

How does it create any 'clarity' if you can doubt that clarity as well. Anything that you think make more sense down the road, you can doubt that as well, so eventually you don't get anywhere. Its like you can say that what zurew said about xyz  can be doubted so he is wrong about xyz. I can doubt an infinite amount of things, but that does not necessarily give any clarity at all.  i don't think it can give any clarity for the problem what we are wrestling with right now, because of the finite nature of doubting.

 

I can doubt gravity, does that mean that gravity won't work anymore?

I can doubt that the police will catch me if i steal something, does that really mean that the police won't catch me?

[amanen]

Ceasing to talk with people would mean selectively ignoring certain aspects of your own mind because other people are simply parts of your own mind

[Gesundheit2]

3 minutes ago, zurew said:

Yes, i assumed that, because you were talking about how everything is just data for you, so i thought there is no perspective which has more relevance for you comapared to the other ones. So now you are somwhat agreeing that you actually play the hierarchy game (because you said that you don't treat all perspectives the same).

Of course, any mind activity automatically implies playing the hierarchy game. So as long as I'm thinking and talking, I am playing the game. The mere fact that I consider everything data is itself a hierarchy that I've created in order to make sense of reality, and so far reality never made any more sense than now. Ultimately, if I were to drop the hierarchy, I would be silent or say that I don't know. That's the only way I know to equalize all thoughts.

3 minutes ago, zurew said:

The real problem here is you don't like to go meta enough. You don't want to apply the tools against themselves (like doubting doubting, or questioning questioning etc) because then you would realise the finite nature of those tools. Maybe it is mental masturbation, or it shows you the nondual nature of life and it shows you that doubting is just one finite tool, and using it can only get you so far.

Notice that you can only think inside your language, you can't think outside of it. Its not good nor bad, it just that it has its own limitations to it , because anything that is potentially outside of the boundaries of your language you can't think about it. If we are staying consistent with the me problem (me problem is : figuring out what you  actually are) ,then using finite structures like logic and language can only give you a finite model of yourself.

Again, you are using finite structures and you are trying to make sense of yourself using those structures. You don't want to go outside of those structures (like letting go of doubting and letting go of using language and human logic to try to figure yourself out that way).

I told you before, you assume too much about me, and the assumptions seem to be blinding you from my communication.

You assume that I'm stuck inside my mind and can't see beyond, let alone escape it. But ironically from this conversation it seems to me like that's how you're actually operating. For example, I see you talking about the "me problem" which is not a problem for me. You assume about me what you're actually doing, which is projection.

3 minutes ago, zurew said:

How does it create any 'clarity' if you can doubt that clarity as well. Anything that you think make more sense down the road, you can doubt that as well, so eventually you don't get anywhere. Its like you can say that what zurew said about xyz  can be doubted so he is wrong about xyz. I can doubt an infinite amount of things, but that does not necessarily give any clarity at all.  i don't think it can give any clarity for the problem what we are wrestling with right now, because of the finite nature of doubting.

Doubting can create clarity in more than one way. It can help create distinctions between more clear and less clear understanding, so it's not necessarily just black or white. As well, the ultimate clarity you get is that you don't really know anything, and that solves the "me problem" as well as many others.

3 minutes ago, zurew said:

I can doubt gravity, does that mean that gravity won't work anymore?

You can doubt the concept of gravity, and you should, because gravity is a theory. We assume that masses attract each other, but maybe there's a different assumption that makes more sense and works more in alignment with reality.

Now, the real thing that is labeled gravity is an appearance that can be doubted as well, but at this point the doubt is at an existential level, which doesn't necessarily affect the way gravity works.

3 minutes ago, zurew said:

I can doubt that the police will catch me if i steal something, does that really mean that the police won't catch me?

Yes, actually. That's a real possibility. Not every thief gets caught, so doubt in this case can be useful to the criminal as it can give him the courage to do the crime.

[ZzzleepingBear]

What else would a mind do, wheter it is the only one or not? If there was merely silence, then who could even tell if there was/is what we call a mind to begin with?

[Javfly33]

Because "they" exist within my mind. As a brilliant imagination.

[Nivsch]

@zurew Ok this makes sense that if we neutralizing the part of the brain/mind (is there really a so solid part of it? I doubt it) which is responsible to the sense of self, then we see the infinite of the processes within us.

But even then, your emotions, your desire and your personality will definitely corrupt your experience into a solid picture of reality you want to be. its impossible to escape from that.

Thats why even among the hard-core method and psychedelic users, you will still see different version of "absolute reality". Some will see infinitely together-ness with everyone, and some will see aloneness and solipsism. And of course everyone will think he is the more right one.

Also, you can't trust only one kind of psychedelic above the other because then your picture will be distorted towards the unique wiring the psychedelic X does above the wiring other methods and psychedelics will do.

And thank you for your indept explanation!

Edited March 19, 2022 by Nivsch

[zurew]

5 minutes ago, Nivsch said:

But even then, your emotions, your desire and your personality will definitely corrupt your experience into a solid picture of reality you want to be. its impossible to escape from that.

Thats why even among the hard-core method and psychedelic users, you will still see different version of "absolute reality". Some will see infinitely together-ness with everyone, and some will see aloneness and solipsism. And of course everyone will think he is the more right one.

The experience is not even a good word for it, because that even applies that something having an experience(assuming there is a distinction between you and an experience), but thats not the case, you become an infinite experience(if we want to frame it that way).

I would recommend you to think about this from the infinite consciousness pov a little bit. Do you think that just because you can question an experience / realisation with your ego, that automatically means that its not true? At the end of the day we are expecting something that can't be questioned? -> can that also  be questioned ? - of course it can, so we end up going nowhere.

All these stuff only make sense if you realise it yourself. Further talk won't be productive, because it will be about an ego trying to make sense an infinitely complex thing(You). Judging from the lower will end up being a never ending questioning and doubting and a finite model building. Of course you can say that thats begging the question which is upper/lower, but then again if what i am saying is true, the only rational thing you can do, if you have a direct experience of it. If what I say is true, that means you can't make sense of it well with using your ego and your finite logic. Because you want to make sense of it using a finite structure, you end up seeing a lot of paradoxes and you will be confused forever.

The only thing you can do now is that you do a real experiment and see it for yourself. You have to see it for yourself, thats the only way to check if what i am saying is true or false. Remember if you are truly stage yellow, you have to put yourself into the other person's perspective, so you can make sense of it more well. That practically means you have to use something like 5meo DMT to be able to kill your ego instantly and see it for yourself whats being talked about.

 

[Nivsch]

@zurew I am not underestimating the realization which is very real and valuable.

But still everyone will frame it differently which will still affect the realization significantly (we are all one / you are alone / you are together with everything / etc).

The Ego will never stop saying his words.

But you can always be more conscious and integrate all of these perspectives into a more whole perspective.

I am not saying I am above those people, I am probably less conscious than Leo and many spiritual people with an integrity of hard work and contemplation.

But every level can see things the higher levels doesnt see. For example Blue can see things green doesnt.

I will read couple of times more what you wrote and will reply.

Edited March 19, 2022 by Nivsch

[zurew]

Just now, Nivsch said:

I am not underestimating the realization which is very real and valuable.

But still everyone will frame it differently (we are all one / you are alone / you are together with everything / etc).

The Ego will never stop saying his words.

But you can always be more conscious and integrate all of these perspectives into a more whole perspective.

I will read couple of times more what you wrote and will reply.

Yeah i understand why you want to "attack" this existential problem this way. But at some point you have to experiment with it, thats the only way to make sure i am not bullshitting.

Good luck experimenting, and have a great day!

[Nivsch]

3 hours ago, zurew said:

That practically means you have to use something like 5meo DMT to be able to kill your ego instantly and see it for yourself whats being talked about.

 

You are right this is part of the process.

But 5meo dmt is still only one kind of a substance with only one unique way to influence neurotransmitors and rewire my brain.

Dont you think this is problematic to rely only (or even mostly) on one kind of psychedelic, and take it as a guidance to absolute truth?

Edited March 19, 2022 by Nivsch