evolution: godXistence playing at bEcoming an infinite nuMber of beings

[cosmic._.ape]

ok so we already know we are godxistence playing at becoming an infinite number of beings. We call this process “evolution”.

We are all that exists, and therefore, our only company is “non-existence”, which is the same as to say we are radically lonely.

So we decided to create the delusion of living in a multiverse, the delusion of suffering and enjoying and infinite number of companions.
We know all that, and it's ok

BUT what next? How do we transform ourselves, thus is, existence, in a better place? How do we improve existence, life, ourselves?

Keywords are:
* permaculture
* participatory, or direct, or delegative, or liquid democracy
* empathy
etc?

 

[methamaniac]

My thoughts....
"We" didnt decide anything in the beginning
pantheism
monism
transhumanism
The only thing that is evolving is the dellusion you are God.
You are unique. A CREATION of God. You have free will. You have choices in life.
The very fact we disagree should be proof to anyone we are not the same.
Can a weed be you and you a weed?
Why put yourself before a weed?
-"Live and let live man"- ✌?✌
Should you resist anything?
Or just do what feels "right"?
Wait, right and wrong doesnt exist --right?
How could they?
I guess just do whatever "you" do
consequences dont exist.....pure illusion
Right is wrong, wrong is right, right is left,
and up is down
There is no absolute God
And there are no absolutes --"you" are absolutely sure ?

There is a way to improve yourself.
The real God has a plan.
Try listening to the creator and not the creation.

 

[swilow]

We are all that exists, and therefore, our only company is “non-existence”, which is the same as to say we are radically lonely.

What makes you say "we are all that exists"? That's a momentous conclusion to draw...

BUT what next? How do we transform ourselves, thus is, existence, in a better place? How do we improve existence, life, ourselves?

I think these are great and difficult to answer questions. I'd have to say that love, equally distributed between our-self, our fellow humans and our family, earth-sharing lifeforms would be a great start The ideas of deep ecology at least ideologically, has something to offer me in my own quest tto fight despair at the future.

Good luck in your own quest

A CREATION of God. You have free will

Ah yes, God-given free will. With the amount of fine print and infinite clauses attached to this "gift", I'd rather not. What type of "free-will" can be given by another?

 

[cosmic._.ape]

ok I see I have to be more concise.

I would like to have answers only from those who agree we are existence becoming an infinite number of beings.

I appreciate methamanic and willow answers but it is not what I'm looking for.

Just to those who agree with the concept of we being godxistence and playing hide and seek with ourselves so we can enjoy the delusion of company, what can we do to improve ourselves (thus is, existence)?

People who doesn't agree with this starting point can open a different discussion threat, but I'd prefer to keep this one on focus, strictly under the OP parameters, thanks

 

[swilow]

Just to those who agree with the concept of we being godxistence and playing hide and seek with ourselves so we can enjoy the delusion of company, what can we do to improve ourselves (thus is, existence)?

Man, this is one the most narrow scopes for a thread that I've seen. You are asking for contributions from people who believe in a neologistic, made up concept only.

Read the deep ecology link! :D

 

[methamaniac]

Man, this is one the most narrow scopes for a thread that I've seen. You are asking for contributions from people who believe in a neologistic, made up concept only.

Read the deep ecology link! :D

I was scratching my head too.
I mean it seems if you only want a conversation with someone that only accepts your supposition (aka only agrees with you),
you are really having a conversation with yourself.
Following same logic,
you would have to hope you never doubted yourself, because if you did u wouldnt be able to converse with self anymore either.
You just violated the parameters.

(just being snarky op, I know what you mean)

 

[Journyman16]

You seem to be saying that becoming an infinite number of beings is THE goal?

I tend to agree that we are all that exists - there seem to be only 2 things in Reality and that's the Universe and Consciousness and the universe seems to be less real the closer we look at it. It's possible that the universe is the playing field created by consciousness in order to get to know itself. The huge (if not infinite) number of beings would match the way we humans tend to learn about something - first we see a tree, then we see bark and trunk and leaves, then we see nutrient channels and fibres and photosynthesis, then we see cells and transport chemicals, then we see molecules and proteins and DNA.

Then we put it all back together and again see a tree, but with far greater appreciation of the complexity of it.

So maybe we are all here to learn all the aspects of Self, and as a part of that, as we grow, we get to become Selfs?

 

[swilow]

^good post

 

[Journyman16]

:D It's a hard-won position. I had to find my way through early god-bothering training and then through the science-as-god training before I could even begin to learn about spirituality and alternatives to The Solid. Took me decades... le sigh...

I sometimes wonder who I might have been if I'd known when I left home the things it took me so long to discover.

 

[methamaniac]

^
Srry but you're begging a lot more questions than I believe you are answering.
A big easy one would be why exactly would we need to discover/learn anything?
I mean in respect to "we are all that exists".
? please dont take personal you know I love your posts

 

[Journyman16]

Think about children, how they are when they first start out. They are all about awareness (once they can focus at all of course :D) and everything is new and fascinating. They are primed to learn, explore and try things out.

I think it is quite feasible to have awareness but not knowledge. I look at what children are like before Life and school fucks them over and I wonder if perhaps there are solid clues there to why we come here.

Imagine there's a consciousness, (call it Self) and it is all there is. How might Self go beyond the initial "I AM!' realisation? If it is anything like us, it will get someone else to take a look and give their view of who the Self is - most people secretly or openly love being told how others see them.

But the Self has a problem - it is all there is. So I wonder if maybe Self didn't create a sub-Self that might reflect Self. Given sub-Self is a lesser copy of Self, it wouldn't be long before maybe sub_self also created a lesser being to look back at it.

So it seems to me, here we are down near the bottom of the chain of self-creations, looking to understand the intricate tiny details of Self, living perhaps in the imagination of Self and the product of maybe sub-sub-sub...sub-Selfs who each have stepped a creation down a level to discover knowledge. Because knowledge is not awareness and I think maybe Self needs knowledge.

So the 'need' comes from a Self that cannot see Self because it was all there is. The universe is simply a field that Self uses to investigate Self and we agree to come play in the field and learn. And I speculate that if we can learn well enough to become a self in our own right, to know our self in detail, maybe we get to graduate and move, as self, back up the line towards the original Self, taking our knowledge and ability to use that knowledge back to where it all began.

And if that doesn't give those who like to attack me some decent fodder, I'm unsure what will... :D

 

[methamaniac]

^
No attack here (not saying you meant anyone in particular)
I respect your ideas, awareness.
I see where you get idea of "unintelligent" designer now
I have a couple "issues" with what you wrote tho.
I dont believe original "self" would ever have the need for creating another self in the way you describe. How would it know that another self would help "it"(for lack of better term)
do anything without the knowledge from experience with self in the first place. And unless it made this self completly equal, it coludnt really help Self. And as far as I can tell I dont think I am completely equal with this Self.
This rolls into my theory on "Self" and why we were created.

 

[swilow]

What if the whole notion of Self is a total illusion? Which (I think) is what people are saying here (maybe :D). If we are the universe experiencing itself, then we are the universe. This denies any sense of individuation.

Another question that always comes up (for me) is why must there be a purpose or goal for the universe? Or a purpose, or meaning of life? What if there is no actual point to this whole thing? I personally find that liberating, but it can be dismissed as negative nihilism in a way.

Methmaniac, I would love to see what reasons you think there are for us being created....? (being serious, no sarcasm, interested in your views )

 

[methamaniac]

^
Im too skeptical to be a nihilist ☺

My views on why we were created?
I've shared them a few times in depth in previous posts.
Basically you're asking me the age old question what is the meaaning of life. That question there can get deep. Real deep.
But if I had to put it in a nutshell I would say it is to serve others. More precise I would say to serve other than self. Where I believe I split from J-man is in the need. We are the ones that can "learn" from this.

I dont think the big "Self" needs anything from us. If I had something Big G needed than it seems I would have power over Big G.
I can be arrogant at times but I dont think I can control God.
Im still trying to crack the nut on to how I could play more into the big Self's conscienceness.
But the more I listen to "him",
the more the nut begins to crack.

 

[Journyman16]

Look at it this way... if you wanted to know how you'd react in a given situation, aside from putting yourself IN that situation, what would you do? I spent time over the years imagining all the kinds of traffic problems that might arise and thinking my way through the best possible reactions - I think it has saved my life a number of times.

So how do I do that? I picture the situation and me in it and I imagine the events unfolding and I set myself to try various things to resolve it. Note that I do not have to create a 3D me, I can do it with a mental image, a 'lesser' self that runs the 'program' so I can see how it might work out.

Is it possible for a Self to create a Self that is to all purposes identical? It's only a guess but I would think it isn't.

Do I 'need' something from this lesser Self? Not really but if I put my Self into the situation for real and get it wrong, I don't get to try again.

And it is also possible that in creating Self's, the original Self is actually entering the lower state as well, in essence participating in the game. Which would mean, even if we call Self 'god' s/he is no longer there but instead distributed across the playing board, trying out all kinds of possibilities to get to know Self.

 

[methamaniac]

So how do I do that? I picture the situation and me in it and I imagine the events unfolding and I set myself to try various things to resolve it. Note that I do not have to create a 3D me, I can do it with a mental image, a 'lesser' self that runs the 'program' so I can see how it might work out.

I think we got into this before. I'm not opposed to idea of me not being "real" but being potentially real.

And it is also possible that in creating Self's, the original Self is actually entering the lower state as well, in essence participating in the game. Which would mean, even if we call Self 'god' s/he is no longer there but instead distributed across the playing board, trying out all kinds of possibilities to get to know Self.

You had me a little up to here lol
I know exactly what you are saying. We could be God experiencing life. Trying something new.
To believe that imo u have to assume God is giving up knowledge and attributes he already possesses if you posit he has a "need" for something new.
How do you create something with a specific need without knowing the want first?
How would this self ever know what it was looking for ? If you dont know what you're looking for Id imagine you'd never find it.

 

[Journyman16]

Real depends on many things. Given the universe is not 'real' and we are here in it experiencing it, we are as real as we need to be. Maybe a 4-dimensional Being would see us as insubstantial, their equivalent of us looking at a shadow and seeing a 2-dimensional being? But we are here in The Solid, whether 'real' or not and to us it is all 'real' - maybe that is so for every 'Self' created by higher Selfs?

Maybe Lucifers fall had more to do with him 'creating' Selfs to be under him and so 'losing' his position immediately under The Self because he then started playing a lesser game?

We create 'new' things without setting out to do so all the time. Do you hold your god to be less than humans? Many of our discoveries and inventions came about by accident simply because someone was curious. As they say, the most exciting words in Science are not "Eureka" but rather, "that's funny..."

All God had to be was curious.

Think about it - immediately after the thought, "I AM" the next logical thought would be, "What am I?" Who knows, trying to consider one's Self might be all it takes to make a new PoV. The Flower of Life begins with an Awareness and location, followed by a move to the edge of awareness and a new perception that overlaps the first and so on. If the Awareness moves to the edge of perception, does that make it a new Self because it can look back to what was?

I think you are confusing Awareness with Knowledge - perfect awareness is not perfect knowledge, or even any knowledge at all. Again, look at children - when they first start out they are all about awareness but it take time for them to gain knowledge. Perhaps we recapitulate the development of Self? Perhaps we are meant to so as to build from a base to a new Self?

 

[methamaniac]

Hey man,
Good points....
Couple issues tho,

I think you are confusing Awareness with Knowledge - perfect awareness is not perfect knowledge, or even any knowledge at all.

I know the difference between awareness and knowledge.
It lies in understanding.
To understand knowledge you need awareness, and to understand awareness you need knowledge.

I'm not sure i know what you mean when you say "perfect awareness". How do you get perfect awareness unless knowledge is present?

The baby you described is already programed with some basic knowledge. You or I would call this instict- an automatic form of knowledge.

We create 'new' things without setting out to do so all the time.

We dont really create anything "new". We just discover truths and express them. We're just learning what is and isnt possible.

 

[Journyman16]

No, the baby is 'programmed' with potentials for knowledge.

And also no, to understand knowledge you need wisdom. I think maybe to FIND knowledge you need awareness - I can't think of anyway a rock can find knowledge nor understand it... although there is a possibility some crystals might. :D

I'm also unsure about creating 'new' - we might not be creating it but then again it is possible we are. More soon - got to go get my food from the stove... :D

 

[Erikmen]

Man, this is one the most narrow scopes for a thread that I've seen. You are asking for contributions from people who believe in a neologistic, made up concept only.

Read the deep ecology link! :D

Yes, I must agree with that line of thinking..