Someone here

Why do I see from my eyes and not yours? Why am I me and not you?(answered )

171 posts in this topic

@Gesundheit2 What I am saying is absolutely true, and so is what you are saying. This is what I am saying. 


 "Unburdened and Becoming" - Bon Iver

                            ◭"89"

                  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, Thought Art said:

@Gesundheit2 Yeah, I can see relative distinctions. I can sense what he is pointing at. But, it's a false distinction.

Why is it a false distinction? How does falseness relate to imagination? Can there be a false distinction, really? Is there a true imagination and a false imagination? Distinctions are imaginary, after all, but what does that have to do with truth and falsehood?


Foolish until proven other-wise ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Gesundheit2 A false distinction isn't true. Even though, it is Truth. He is imagining that other's exist, and that he has sense organs. That, his perceptions aren't the same as pure consciousness.... I am saying he is imagining distinctions which, if he stopped imagining them he would discover aren't the case at all. Relative things are false by definition. But, we are being super Meta here. Speaking about the Groking of God and reality. Not, so much finite human stuff.

Regardless of what is held in the content, or the relative way of the consciousness... It's just what is. Okay, gotta go focus on my bizzz

Edited by Thought Art

 "Unburdened and Becoming" - Bon Iver

                            ◭"89"

                  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, Thought Art said:

@Gesundheit2 A false distinction isn't true.

When you say "false distinction", you're referring to a value judgement or quality as in relative falsity. But when you say it "isn't true", you're referring to the existential property of true or false, as in existing or non-existent. These are two different levels that you're somehow mixing together, and it is important to understand the difference between them.

52 minutes ago, Thought Art said:

I am saying he is imagining distinctions which, if he stopped imagining them he would discover aren't the case at all.

Why would that be the case? Who said that imaginary distinctions are not true? Do you see the circular logic here?

Basically, you are saying all distinctions are imaginary, and therefore ultimately false, precisely because they're imaginary.

If all distinctions are imaginary, and I agree that they are, how does that make them not true? Like, why do you automatically assume their falsity, just because they're imaginary? What if they can be imaginary and true both at the same time?

However, do you think that it is possible to stop imagining distinctions? I personally don't think so. And even if it is possible, what does that have to do with truth? There is a common belief in spiritual communities that truth is that which never changes or goes away. I think it's the source of this assumption. That is, if you stop imagining it, it might stop being true.


Foolish until proven other-wise ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes

 

 

Edited by Thought Art

 "Unburdened and Becoming" - Bon Iver

                            ◭"89"

                  

Share this post


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

@Breakingthewall Yeah, so. You are the absolute "Right Now" imaging a relative backstory.

You have an infinite pool you can pull from. 

2 hours ago, Thought Art said:

 

 

That phrase implies that something is being done, that is, to imagine this concrete now. From this it follows that at another moment was imagined a different now. that was and now it is not... that is, it is the past. it implies a succession of events, that is, time. Where are now the infinite things that have happened? nothing really happened and nothing happens, right now there is the infinity infinitely mobile and therefore immutable. so, your pov is infinite right now, include my pov. my pov and your pov are the same but I am blind to everything except the apparent moment that I am living and you are blind to everything except the yours. That's the way to create "you" and "me". You and me are a fiction created by that limitation of the pov that appears to be finite when it is not, and in that way split itself in infinite appearances.

Edited by Breakingthewall

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can anybody answer what is the difference between a sense perception and pure consciousness?


Intrinsic joy is revealed in the marriage of meaning and being.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Breakingthewall I just mean whatever is is

I am saying there is only one perspective. Not mine but yours just this. Paradox I guess plays in here. Human language is dualistic. Can’t say what I am saying you know?

As a human, you experience different events and can contrast them right? The linear progress is a well constructed illusion.

Edited by Thought Art

 "Unburdened and Becoming" - Bon Iver

                            ◭"89"

                  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Carl-Richard Sense perception would be the objects, sounds, shapes, colours, sensations. 
 

Pure consciousness is 


 "Unburdened and Becoming" - Bon Iver

                            ◭"89"

                  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Thought Art said:

@Carl-Richard Sense perception would be the objects, sounds, shapes, colours, sensations. 
 

Pure consciousness is 

Great. So again, an actual solipsist would believe that some sense perceptions that they have identified as themselves are the only things that truly exist. They do this based on how their own body and mind seems to relate to the environment and other bodies within it. When I say "mind", I'm referring to the predominant Western conception of "mind", which is a collection of sense perceptions.

So let me repeat: the body and the mind are sense perceptions; what you call objects, sounds, shapes, colors, sensations. Now, to say that "consciousness" is the only thing that truly exists, is not the same thing as solipsism. Yes, consciousness is what you fundamentally are, and this "you" is the only thing that truly exists, but it has nothing to do with your body, your mind, or how the environment or other bodies relate to it.

Edited by Carl-Richard

Intrinsic joy is revealed in the marriage of meaning and being.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Carl-Richard Whatever you say

I think there’s an important Grok your not getting. This is my show you don’t get to decide how I use my words. 

I’m not a western materialist because materialism is false… so, I know that consciousness is what I am. This isn’t a belief I am telling you. 
 

You aren’t proving me wrong. 
 

Solipsism is a form of idealism, which isn’t a far stretch from consciousness. Like, if all that can be known is your own mind and it’s perceptions… that’s consciousnesses. I repeat:

Edited by Thought Art

 "Unburdened and Becoming" - Bon Iver

                            ◭"89"

                  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 04/01/2023 at 7:30 AM, Someone here said:

Long read ahead..so go make some coffee ;)

This question is actually one of the deepest philosophical questions one may think of, and I am not absolutely sure if everyone who provided their answers in this topic fully understands the underlying thought of this question.

It is a very intriguing question, and it is very hard to formalize in words. “Why am I me?” is indeed the best possible wording if we try to put it into English, but it still fails to provide an immediate clarity of what this question is about.

Let me share with you some of my personal experience around this question first.

I do not remember exactly when I asked myself “why am I me?” for the first time in my life, but it definitely was before my 5 or even before my 4.

One of my very early memories related to this question was a sudden “discovery” that all adults (including my parents) were blind. Literally! OK, let me explain. I was a very young child (I do not even know what my age was, but I remember myself lying in a baby bed) when my mom came to my bed and started talking to me. And when I looked at her face (specifically paying attention to her eyes), I surprisingly discovered I could not see the world from her location. I cannot explain why, but back then, I expected that presence of someone else’s eyes would have immediately resulted in my ability to perceive the world from their point of view. It may seem ridiculous to you (and to present “me” as well), but at that time I probably failed to fully understand that my perception was only “my” perception .. I expected a somewhat “global shared field of perception” to exist. Of course, I did not (and could not) put this logic into words then, it was merely a vague “feeling”, but I do remember it well. And more and more observations of other adults at that time led me to a conclusion that they just cannot see, their eyes are somewhat “empty”.

That funny story was not like directly asking “why am I me?” yet, but it was a kind of a “prerequisite” to it. Much older, when I already possessed a more “adult” understanding of the world (i.e. I already knew other people could see as well, I already knew I had not been always existing , as I initially used to think, I already knew children and adults were just different stages of aging, and not two “fundamentally different sorts of people”  as it seemed to me earlier), but still being young enough (no more than in my 4 or 5) this question came to me for the first time. I did not have any wording for it yet - back then I just called it this question for myself. Much later, I found a somewhat suitable verbal form for it ..and it was “Why am I me?” .

This question was so strange, so hard to explain, so hopeless to be ever answered, that it made me feel  helpless every time I tried to think of it for long enough. It was sometimes even scary to think of it deeply, but at the same time my curiosity made me come back to it again and again.

 

And today ..I'm finally able to find the answer to this question for myself. How ? Well,I noticed a very strange and unexplainable thing (and also it was somewhat frightening): I am “the center” of perception, “the center” of consciousness, “the center” of self-awareness. That was not anyone else but me. It made me feel as I was a very special, a very unique human being on the whole Earth.Why me? How come I was born such an unusual creature, not like anyone else?

But on the other hand, I already understood that no one would believe I was special if I dared to tell it to anybody. So, I kept my “discovery” in a deep secret. And, frankly speaking, it did not feel that bad at all to be the unique center of perceptionBut I realized I would probably never find any explanation to that fact - and it was depressing.

I am the center of perception in the Universe. At least, it is the way I feel it. Although I know that any other person feels the same, this knowledge comes from my daily practice. I can never be 100% sure that other people are conscious. Theoretically, there is a possibility that all other people are philosophical zombies.they act as if they had consciousness, and even if you ask any of them if that person is conscious, they will undoubtedly say “yes” .but it does not prove they are conscious .. they can be “programmed” this way. Of course, it is merely a theoretical possibility, but it cannot be scientifically disproven. As to myself, I am fully aware that I am conscious and not a philosophical zombie.

Then a few months ago ..I stumbled upon Leo's solipsism video ..and since then my whole life changed and there is no going back . I awakened to what Leo calls "Absolute Solipsism "

I can go even further then the classical concept of solipsism, and I can also deny time .which seems logical (later you will see why). Time is also an illusion produced by my mind and specifically by my memory. It is not possible to prove that the past existed . everything may have appeared just now, with the current state of my memory which cheats me. And it is not possible to prove the future will exist for the same reason .I know about the future based on my previous experience. But if all my previous experience is nothing more than a trick of my mind, then it is very likely there will be no future (as there was no past). All that exists is my mind at the present moment. Period.

And so now I'm satisfied with my conclusions. I'm finally at peace of knowing why am I me.  Because I'm God. The only being in the universe. 

Did you just try to explain away the mystery? That's silly

 you think too much 


Suppose Love is real, and let's assume reality is unreal. Suppose we discover that the building block of reality is real Love, that means our assumption was wrong and reality is actually not unreal. Reality is real, if everything we supposed is true. I'm not going to say if it is or not.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Thought Art said:

@Carl-Richard Whatever you say

I think there’s an important Grok your not getting. This is my show you don’t get to decide how I use my words. 

I’m not a western materialist because materialism is false… so, I know that consciousness is what I am. This isn’t a belief I am telling you. 
 

You aren’t proving me wrong. 
 

Solipsism is a form of idealism, which isn’t a far stretch from consciousness. Like, if all that can be known is your own mind and it’s perceptions… that’s consciousnesses. I repeat:

We use words to communicate concepts in an understandable way, and if our use of words is incongruent with the larger context, our communication will break down. Instead of being inflexible with your use of words, try to communicate the concepts in a way that is appropriate to the situation. To use the word "solipsism" to describe the primacy of consciousness on a forum like this is not appropriate, as evidenced by the sea of confusion spawned by Leo's video on the topic and by responses such as @michaelcycle00 and @Someone here.

Edited by Carl-Richard

Intrinsic joy is revealed in the marriage of meaning and being.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Carl-Richard ahah, no

It’s actually very appropriate. Given this forum…

I’m saying that, Solipsism is true. The idea that all can be known is your own mind is true. 
 

Then, because that exists in the larger context of Actualized teachings that all is consciousness and universal mind what I am saying is completely appropriate.
 

Trying to say that what I am saying is not solipsism is just false. I’m including the classics definition that all can be known is one’s mind… and because I have done enough consciousness work to know reality IS my own mind. I am telling you these things. 

Do you watch Leo’s videos or read his book list? Have you read Jed McKenna’s Theory if everything? If people here did then they would have access to a similar vocabulary. 
 

At the same time, yes we can all work to define our use of words. But, it’s rather complicated as there is a blurry tapestry and many of us even lack the reference experiences. 
 

Also, I am working this all out for myself. I’m going beyond beliefs. I am a young immature philosopher. 

Edited by Thought Art

 "Unburdened and Becoming" - Bon Iver

                            ◭"89"

                  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Thought Art said:

@Carl-Richard ahah, no

It’s actually very appropriate. Given this forum…

This forum is not a closed community where all the members accept 100% of what Leo says uncritically, so no.


Intrinsic joy is revealed in the marriage of meaning and being.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Carl-Richard Well, it is a forum of a teacher. It’s completely appropriate. 

Why are you putting ideas in my head? I've never claimed to accept all Leo's says uncritically.. I've never said I agree with him and often give him a hard time actually.


Talking about this stuff is appropriate, as is sharing my insights and views in a relatively respectful way.... We all do... communication... Talking about spirituality and philosophy is appropriate..

But is it messy? Confusing? Challenging? Contentious? Scary? Blurry? Grey? Are people coming in with different maps?

Yeah, that’s part of the work of spirituality and philosophy and discussing that in a public way. 
 

Of course we don’t need to agree. Go off your own direct experiences. If you experience others, and a physical world and you believe it’s true then, gong ho

Edited by Thought Art

 "Unburdened and Becoming" - Bon Iver

                            ◭"89"

                  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Thought Art said:

@Carl-Richard Well, it is a forum of a teacher. It’s completely appropriate. 

Complete submission to the supreme Teacher! Alleoh uakbar! ? Let him guide us into linguistic transcendence! ???

 

3 minutes ago, Thought Art said:

But is it messy? Confusing? Challenging? Contentious? Scary? Blurry? Grey? Are people coming in with different maps?

Yeah, that’s part of the work of spirituality and philosophy. 

It's an unwanted part which you want to limit, and in this case it's very overcomeable: just don't use the word.


Intrinsic joy is revealed in the marriage of meaning and being.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Carl-Richard Okay, you are a jerk. Conversation over. Great Mod.

Missing the points of what I am saying. You are saying the use of the words I am using are not appropriate.  What and asshole-ish thing to say.

Edited by Thought Art

 "Unburdened and Becoming" - Bon Iver

                            ◭"89"

                  

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