Help me ~define~ something

[TheAppleCore]

Do you guys get this phenomenon, where there's a concept lurking in the shadows of your intuition -- you can feel its presence, you can see a little mental image associated with it -- you might even be able to use it in a casual discussion -- but you can't really put your finger on it? You don't really know what the heck it is! It's like intellectual tip-of-the-tongue syndrome.

I'm struggling with one right now. I need you guys to help me surface this from the murky waters of non-definition. It's a potential model for the fundamental nature of reality, basically. Here are some words that come to mind, although their meaning, I can't be certain of:

Humanity, or intelligent life in a broader sense, is somehow a nexus of reality itself. It's not an afterthought, it doesn't lie at the outer edge of reality; it's entirely central. Perhaps even fundamentally differentiated in some way from the rest of reality, which is "peripheral" rather than "central" (but this thought, I am a bit less fond of). We are the protagonists of the cosmic drama.

...

 

[Jamshyd]

My own experience with such states has invariably been a good one. It seems that these states reflect an awareness of unconscious material that many simply tune out and continue going on their daily lives, possibly doing harm because their own hearts are frustrated with being tuned out all the time.

It seems that climbing a mountain gives a good analogy for this: the more you persevere, the better view you are rewarded with. Yet, you cannot ever find this view by running around in the valleys, because being at the bottom severely limits your visibility - the foothills and valleys and other mountains look beautiful from higher altitudes because they are seen in concert, as the bigger picture.

The mountain itself is the mountain of self-temperance - and the path leading to the top, while appearing useless because it goes to none of the pretty features, is nontheless the only way by which you can see them all.

This is what I have learnt so far... I hope you can find it useful .

 

[Dedbeet]

Humanity, or intelligent life in a broader sense, is somehow a nexus of reality itself.

What about the notion of consciousness itself being what's intelligent, sentient, feeling and alive -- rather than the reverse view of consciousness being contained within an intelligent, sentient, feeling and alive body?

 

[TheAppleCore]

The mountain itself is the mountain of self-temperance - and the path leading to the top, while appearing useless because it goes to none of the pretty features, is nontheless the only way by which you can see them all.

This is what I have learnt so far... I hope you can find it useful .

Well, Jamshyd, I must say that you have made the peak of this mountain a mighty temptation, and I stand at its edge with an eager will, and hiking boots on feet. :D Now, the question remains, how does one embark this climb?

What about the notion of consciousness itself being what's intelligent, sentient, feeling and alive -- rather than the reverse view of consciousness being contained within an intelligent, sentient, feeling and alive body?

Yes, getting warmer -- I already took this for granted, actually. I'm fairly certain that this notion I speak of will not contradict my materialistic/non-dualistic view.

 

[TheAppleCore]

Here's another little tidbit of verbalism that erupted from pondering the idea:

There is an intelligence behind life. Life shares some sort of semblance to a technology that was created with a purpose in mind, and duly fulfills this intention. Everything is the way it is because it enables the human technology to exist. Not only because of humans, but humans were one of the crucial elements in the blueprint of reality.

EDIT:

Alright, I think I've boiled it down pretty well, now.

The important part is this: reality is some sort of means to an end. Reality is a framework, a technology, the nuts and bolts that ultimately come together to realize some purpose.

Here's my problem -- it only really makes sense to ascribe a "purpose" to something when it has a creator that is roughly like a human itself -- something that desires, something that predicts -- something that creates something in an attempt to approximate what it predicts to fulfill its desires, basically. So how does this apply to the *entire universe itself*?

 

[MyDoorsAreOpen]

I think I know exactly what you're talking about, OP. It's hard to put into words. It may in fact be impossible to capture with precise language, although I'm certain clear wordless first person experience of it is quite possible. Metaphors and poetic language will have to suffice to approximate it. Ways I've tried to word this idea before:

"We are the universe's eyes and ears."

"Yin is the dark, hidden half of the world that lies within you, and yang is the light half of the world that lies outside of you. Reality as you experience it is just where those two worlds interface and blend into each other."

This idea often strikes me clearly on ketamine. I once phrased it thusly after a k-hole: "What if I am God and I created this world, but I got so wrapped up in living the lives of my creations firsthand through their eyes, that over the eons I forgot I created it all?"

"Inside of you is a flicker of the ultimate reality, and that's your sentient mind. This flicker shines a light out through your eyes and other sensory organs, transforming things-in-themselves into things."

I agree with you, OP. I think it's arbitrary, and of questionable usefulness to humanity, to view ourselves and our location in the universe as insignificant and peripheral. I can just as easily, if not more easily, argue that you and I, right here right now, are front and center! This universe belongs to us, and our ownership is bestowed by the same force that brings all things into full existence: our sentient beholding. This is the "light" of which mystical traditions often speak.

I think the truth is, you are God. And so am I. But we have practical reasons for not being perpetually in touch with this naked truth all the time, and even better reasons for generally not phrasing it this way.

 

[TheAppleCore]

^ Wow, that was an awesome post. I am certain that we are both in touch with the same truth, and that your excellent use of metaphor has indeed brought me closer to the this truth.

I didn't want to admit it in my previous posts, because I thought that it would discount the idea in some people's eyes, but now I cannot resist saying that my experiences with smoked DMT were the origin of this idea. I find it very interesting, and almost reassuring, that we have both converged at this single "nexus" through two entirely different compounds; one a dissociative and the other a serotonergic psychedelic.

I guess the reason I made the thread in the first place was to somehow develop a totally unambiguous description of the idea -- analogous to an exact mathematical formula describing the motion of the Earth around the sun. But in retrospect, I suppose that would be equivalent to demanding a unified theory of the entire cosmos! And wouldn't that ruin all the fun?

 

[TheAppleCore]

The important part is this: reality is some sort of means to an end. Reality is a framework, a technology, the nuts and bolts that ultimately come together to realize some purpose.

Here's my problem -- it only really makes sense to ascribe a "purpose" to something when it has a creator that is roughly like a human itself -- something that desires, something that predicts -- something that creates something in an attempt to approximate what it predicts to fulfill its desires, basically. So how does this apply to the *entire universe itself*?

Bumping this thread, because I'm still curious to see if anyone can attempt to reconcile this idea.

 

[B9]

There is an intelligence behind life. Life shares some sort of semblance to a technology that was created with a purpose in mind, and duly fulfills this intention. Everything is the way it is because it enables the human technology to exist. Not only because of humans, but humans were one of the crucial elements in the blueprint of reality.

I only quoted you because I seem to find it impossible to disagree. I do wonder if many if not most or all of the decisions we make are truly conscious choices both on an individual level and within the wider parts of society. I made a point the other day about people who overthrow unfair systems often ending up acting in similar ways to the people they overthrew, it's almost like when one reaches a certain position of power that a switch is thrown enabling the justification of almost any means to perpetuate centralisation of power, we the individual are taken within the walls of this protective structure & the protective structure appropriates resources & doles them out as it sees fit. Even Pol Pot despite his nod of the head to acknowledgement of the oppressive nature of industrialisation retained the tools to command everything within his realm.
Furthermore and again I'm repeating stuff I've said before - mainly because I presume most people don't read it or are too drug addled to remember ( this is truly a reflection of myself :D ) - it does look as if we are not the pinnacle of evolution and the next form up will be biosynthetic then presumably synthetic. Thse forms will draw upon the resources available & those that are not necessary will be discarded. I do feel that there is a something that is powering this process, Dawkins someone whom I have read very little of would have it that it iis the gene but I think your intuition suggests something that predates anything considered by Dawkins.

If you considered a fractal universe you would likely have this feeling but never be able to empirically prove it due to the infinite nature of the fractal & the current lack of any particularly useful way of using infinity within maths - I like that even though i say so myself

No apologies for spelling mistakes misuse of grammar or punctuation - one must allow the grand to feel grand

 

[Pindar]

"Humanity, or intelligent life in a broader sense, is somehow a nexus of reality itself. It's not an afterthought, it doesn't lie at the outer edge of reality; it's entirely central."

If we define reality as what our language defines as real or not, then even the sense that humanity is central to it is misleading, since language is the master of man, and not vice-versa. Surely if reality has any purpose, it is to de-center man, the same way as the Earth was de-centered from the "reality of the universe", and man was "de-centered" by Freud and Darwin. It is only by "enframing" (It is no mistake you used technology as an analogy, Enframing was introduced as its critique), where everything is defined as having a teleology the same way as technology is created with a goal in mind, where we say that we are the center of that which is peripheral and etc... For the more we know, the less we understand, and "truth" comes in the nexus between this. Also should we use the argument we often use against Christians in their "Fine-tuning" of the universe theory, if Humans were to be the central protagonist of the cosmic drama, why is the concept of life more or less hostile in a universe where the Earth is the only planet that has observable life (at the moment) while there's certain areas that are uninhabitable?