• Philosophy and Spirituality
    Welcome Guest
    Posting Rules Bluelight Rules
    Threads of Note Socialize
  • P&S Moderators: Xorkoth | Madness

Drug use and mysticism

if you really want to delve into this, be sure to have a look at Levinas. he spent his entire life writing about the relation between the Same and the Other. Davis as well as Peperzak have written good and popular english introductions to Levinas' thought.

i'd love to write a little more about the subject here as i am very fond of Levinas' work, but im utterly strapped for time for a while
 
Last edited:
Merged once again. Dedbeet replying to an existing thread is preferred over starting a new thread when the topics are very similar.
 
This just a little antidote based on the that last few 'self' posts: I'm 25, living in an apt. with my little brother (23) at university. I've lived with my brother for probably 23 years of my life, so we are especially close. Sometimes during a conversation with him I find myself feeling as if we are really one human being. Or that, my 23 year perception of him is as much myself, as himself.

As somebody that 'practices' Buddhism and meditation, I guess this isn't that strange. It must be like this for all people, if you look long and hard enough.
 
thesoundofmotion said:
That is because our eyes look out and not in.
Click to expand...
They don't.

Note the direction light travels to enter the pupils of your eyes.

Light isn't beamed out, it enters in.

The light one sees is not 'out there'.
 
Last edited:
Changed said:
This just a little antidote based on the that last few 'self' posts: I'm 25, living in an apt. with my little brother (23) at university. I've lived with my brother for probably 23 years of my life, so we are especially close. Sometimes during a conversation with him I find myself feeling as if we are really one human being. Or that, my 23 year perception of him is as much myself, as himself.

As somebody that 'practices' Buddhism and meditation, I guess this isn't that strange. It must be like this for all people, if you look long and hard enough.
Click to expand...

I have strong connections with my brother as well we are only 2 years apart from each other.
 
Dedbeet said:
From here, the ego isn't actually 'self', but "self and other".

It seems to me that talk of transcending self often ignores something both equal and concommittent -- transcending other.

Self/other co-arise, and one can't exist without the other -- thus feelings of e.g. loneliness when self is deprived of other.

The dissolution of self (one's own ego) is the dissolution of everyone's ego.

***

There is a base of Being (awareness), in which both self and other arise.

I see both my own body, and other bodies.

I hear both myself speaking and others speaking, when I'm talking to them.

That which sees, that which hears -- is always already transcendent of self/other.

Is this transcendent Being identifying with a single body, a single speaker -- or is it open to "being" both?

When I'm talking to someone online or in person -- can I move from "me", into the audience, and watch both "me" and "you" interacting as characters?

Peace...
Click to expand...

if solipsism is true than the distinction between "self/other" is really rather vacuous

it would not support your theory that the dissolution of my ego is the dissolution of everyone else's egos - because there are no other egos to dissolve if everything else is simply an extension of myself.

from your posts about existence and perceptionn, you seem to take a solipsistic view of the world that there is no noumenal reality and that the reason phenomena can occur is because they are an extension of the self. this would imply that the distinction between phenomena on a fundamental level is unsound and would further demonstrate that the "self/other" distinction is flawed if there is only an extended self.

what you're really saying is not that the dissolution of the self is necessarily the dissolution of the other - what you're in fact saying is that the other IS the self, ie, an extension of the self, and that the dissolution of the self will cause the dissolution of everything necessarily, as everything is an extension of the self.
 
to be honest i find his (dedbeet's) style of writing kind of maddening. i really can't work out half of what he's saying sometimes, and i don't think it's because he's unintelligent, i think he wants to endow his ideas with a sort of mystical style that really just makes it hard to read through
 
Draigan said:
You seem to be desperately trying to understand the world so as to become free from its entanglements.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure if this addressed at me - You are right that I am trying to understand the world though the process is far from desperate, and freedom from its entanglements is not the teleological aim of such inquiry. I am a Sophia fanboy, as I assume you are too.

You are right to point out the problems inherent in consciousness studies as a self-referential problem. GEB by Hofstadter explores this in exquisite detail.

I don't know if me reminding you that to seek mind with the intellectual mind is considered the greatest of all mistakes will help or not
Click to expand...

I'm not clear what you're saying here, what is the intellectual mind, and by whom is what you refer to considered the greatest of all mistakes?
 
Dedbeet said:
They don't.

Note the direction light travels to enter the pupils of your eyes.

Light isn't beamed out, it enters in.

The light one sees is not 'out there'.
Click to expand...

wow, that perfectly sums up and makes sense of what ive been thinking about for the past few weeks
 
Relationship and unity ;-)

Haven't posted a separate thread in P&S for awhile now, so I thought I'd go ahead and post one (won't continue the pattern, mods, just this one for the fun of it).

Someone, somewhere commented thusly:

>> The subject/object of all relationship is the present
>
> Yes - and to the point that there no longer is any relationship
> that is had, nor any lack of relationship, nor any avoidance of
> relationship.

Dedbeet responds thusly to the above:

Well said.

A nondual notion like "there's no such thing as relationship in unity" is not
quite true (same as with all verbalizations).

Such a statement seems to carry an assumption that unity is something gotten to
after transcending relationship, and to suggest that relationship is "the usual
thing with most people" and unity something rare you discover or realize.

Actually -- unity being always-already-the-case, whatever someone calls
"relationship" is in fact unity, exactly as-is.

How to clarify that there's absolutely nothing to do, change, give up, seek or
avoid to "realize unity?"

Disinvestment in doing, surrendering, changing, seeking (things) and avoiding
(other things) is the same as "realizing unity".

One simply disinvests in disunity, division and separation and ceases to take
them as real (meaningful, important, necessary).

Leaving one with the actual: Boring, dull, banal, commonplace, plodding old
unity.
 
Leaving one with the actual: Boring, dull, banal, commonplace, plodding old
unity.

Ill let you have that... ill stick with my beautiful, peaceful, loving, miraculous unity.
Advaita talk is boring, dull, banal, commonplace, plodding old
 
stonerfromohio said:
Advaita talk is boring, dull, banal, commonplace, plodding old
Click to expand...
Lots of people seem to feel that way -- especially many of the people who hang around Advaita forums on the Net, which is a bit strange IMO. I can't remember how many times I've posted a "purely advaitic" something or other, and someone complained how boring, dull and lifeless it was.

Well, yeah -- it's supposed to be about reality, actuality, which is obviously just as commonplace as it gets.

The human being clings dearly to his/her hopes, dreams, illusions... and won't give them up unless reality takes a baseball bat to their head over them.

It happens occasionally, albeit rarely.

Peace...
 
Nondivision? ;-)

As you read this message, are we actually apart? Are you in contact with me right now?

Who or what are you in contact with right now that (A) isn't a word on your computer screen (being thought in your head), and (B) isn't a mental picture or idea about me (being thought in your head)?

Are you actually in contact with anything but your own mind as you read this message and "think these words" one at a time, as they're read?

Am I the same mind reading this message right now that you are?

Let's try something...

I think this: "Peekaboo!"

Did you think that, too, or was it just me?

If you weren't me, how could you have thought the exact same word I did? And at the same time, too?

Could we ever have contacted each other at all, if we weren't the same mind pretending that you represent a mind out there, and I represent one right here?

Or is it that you represent the one here, and me the one out there?

It changes around a lot, doesn't it? We've always enjoyed that game, I and I.
 
Am I the same mind reading this message right now that you are?
Click to expand...

you wouldnt exist without the other.
you are the other
you are defined by everyone who has ever came into contact with anyone
from the first word you read from me, ive affected you forever + everyone you come into contact with + everyone they come into contact with through all eternity
those arent your thoughts, those are a product of all the people that precede you and as you make sense of it, youre transforming those thoughts
youve probably already been affected by me a long time ago
youre a billion different people interacting in a trillion different ways.
you are the universe
astrology is sociology is biology is psychology
we can all be traced back to the same cell that has now divided who knows how many times
here is there
everything is the same thing.
we are all one
but you cant define any of it because you cant define the universe.

just a bunch of random thoughts i just had.

i even found this sweet little article that sounded awesome after i typed all that
http://www.one-mind-one-energy.com/
 
Last edited:
we all share the same consciousness, even though we live different experiences which give us the illusion of independance

the reason why we "personally" don't know when you think peekaboo is probably because we are just at the beginning of our evolution
[it's actually the same consciousness as ours who thinks it, but our ego is not aware of it]

but when you compare our "individual" consciousness to that of humans 200 000 years ago, and take in account the reports of those who have experienced universal consciousness, it shows us that we'll certainly still go a long way

so in some thousands of years, we may very well be permanently conscious of sharing the same consciousness, and maybe know when you think peekaboo
 
*merged* we've been over this before

If you are writing along the same lines you don't need to start a new thread you can post your reworded same stuff once again in your existing thread. Don't apologize. Apologies are meaningless. I have 5 or 6 apologies from you on this issue. Please just quit making new threads every time your thread has slid towards the bottom.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top