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

Your ideology on what ‘Existence’ is.

I am a taoist :)

but to be honest just feel it man :)

when practicing chi sao with a partner first you are two.

then in time you are one.

same as a rave party where everyone is taking a em-pathogen (days long gone sorry)

I first found it as a musician being so out of time I was crap (could play fast as but timing was crap)

take an MDMA pill and all of a sudden my heart synched with everyone else and low and behold I am

now a metronome.

that link that we learn from psychs with others can be practiced through taoist chi gung and plants

animals and even celestial bodies can be incorporated with your macro micro orbit (meditation practice
with focus on chi movement)

after time you can feel others chi.

then there is the shroom thing that really fucks with my head.

season is in I find one shroom and no others.

I eat that one shroom and well they all sing as we are all one and I know where they all are.

the problem though is the deeper you go the more you loose your own ego and self identity.

moderate everything bar moderation and that includes meditation.

though the fake kung fu on youtube with magic and shit really screws up the search for many.

I was lucky and taught by those who where taught by ip.
 
Cheshire_Kat said:
Life is the universe being aware of itself in a dualistic manner.

I think, therefore I am.
Click to expand...
*reeee’s in nondualism*

Nah I respect it tbh, after this past Nondualism study binge, I’ve “hated” it even more, and more dualism as a whole.
Not quite to say I am against dualism, or that I believe in anti-dualism.
I just think the ground of Dualism being, this or that, right or wrong, good or evil, aren’t my favorite aspects.
Though nondualist beliefs get pretty out there sometimes, and it’s wild more often than not.
The biggest contradiction is that the journey towards nondualism, is dualistic in nature, myeh.
 
TripSitterNZ said:
life is a test by god. Justice will come to pass for all things. You sow your own seeds.
Click to expand...
sorry simon was first and died but unfortunately the Jewish community did not get there martyr.

if at first you fail ........

seek not truth in others writings and ideas.

seek truth only in your own analysis of the situation and know your living right in the middle of it

so you have a conflict of interest as they put it or more basic a fish can not see the tv in the next room

when its in a bowl.

there is no truth only METHOD
 
dualism imply s binary.

again a human construction and we are fish in the bowl

conflicted interest and while im at it do you want to die ?

I don't so we all have conflicted interest driven by ego and fear.

whats it called ?

oh yea very appropriate for here.

opiate for the masses.

what makes you think the hell that is this planet is not a reflection of all existences through all planes.

or that there even is one.
 
sorry that may be harsh for those in NA but to be honest we should be building strength and belief

in our selves not a roman conquest.
 
Cheshire_Kat said:
Dualism doesn't always imply right or wrong, but it does accept that it is itself, reflected.
Click to expand...
I only know what I know of Dualism from the texts of Philosophers, old and young.
So, if I get anything wrong here, please point it out, knowledge first and foremost for me is a reward I am given from others.
I have read heavily up on the Dualistic issue pertaining to the Mind - Body dilemma, which I’ll massively downplay the definition to ~ how the mental & the physical interact.
nondualist view our physical as made up by our mental.
Dualists believe our mind and body are two separate, equally real & inherently opposing natures. Which doesn’t make sense to me, they can inherently oppose, but intertwine. You can’t know what light is, without darkness, can’t know up without down, you can’t know left without right. You simply can’t, in the nature of Dualism it is nondualistic, same as nondualism being inherently dualistic. Unless your practice is that of some rare forms of Advaita Vedanta, bc that doesn’t translate to “One” it just translates to Non Dualism, or Not Two, never specifying more or less. So, who knows.
Then you have the many different types of Dualism, and the obvious criticisms of how the mind - body interacts if they’re different & naturally opposite. The argument boils down to “we react to stimuli outside of our body, because we feel and then we react to these stimuli, so that means we are experiencing both as a reality, not a perceptive creation of the mind! Nondualists literally just say the same thing, but attributed it to their side.
“When a object touches us, our mind is what gives us that sensation!” or without that boiling down comment, it’s just TL/DR confusing as fuck.

Nondualism is just that mind - body are both one in the same, and reality is just Brahmans Atma(World Soul for Brahman) reflected as the underlying One that is all, and nothing.
& Our Atma is just reflection of his, nothing more, and by that logic EVERYTHING is illusionistic. They say this because:
To know an object, we need consciousness, which makes consciousness the subject. However, consciousness, in itself, does not need anything to be known, as it is self-luminous/self aware, so that means objects without consciousness are subjects. &. They believe blah blah blah, yea you know the rest.

TL/DR: There’s both reasons both different sides believe what they believe, I myself don’t believe in either right now. I hate dualism, I think nondualism can get kinda wonky. I do believe the Classical Logic system is flawed, because it uses Rational-Choice Theory, or when we use “rational calculations” to make “rational choices” that have higher chances to meet outcomes that we aligned with our own personal goals, or Subjective Experience.
So that is a massive contradiction to its premise, and the “truth values” given are verbally given via the way it’s worded.

An example that I believe is good to refute it would be, the mañana paradox:
1 Grain of sand doesn’t make a heap of sand.

If one can’t, then 2 can’t, if 2 can’t, then 3 can’t, if that can’t happen then not even 1 billion grains could make a heap of sand. They’re all still one sand, beside another one sand, put simply absolute reasoning.
Thus the paradox is that flawless logic, renders flawed results, it works in the opposite direction to 2 billion make a heap, so 2 billion - 1 make a heap -> one sand grain is still a heap.
People either,
  1. deny that logic applies to soritical expressions.
Alternatively, one might accept that the paradox is a legitimate argument to which logic applies, but then deny its soundness by either

1. Rejecting it’s logic at all.
2. Denying that it’s 100% valid, and only a little substance is to it.
3. embracing the paradox, and conclude that vague terms are either incoherent or vacuous.


So, entirely up to the readers opinion, I don’t know how to take it, I’m just some ignorant guy in this big big world.
The only thing I know, is that I don’t know, and that confuses me in the contradiction alone. 🥲😅
 
I don't get into philosophy so these are just my thoughts. Existence is breath and anything outside that realm is a time capsule or dimension where life is suspended for whatever reason. Needless to say I don't believe in religion so there isn't a whole lot for me to discuss here
 
Gormur said:
I don't get into philosophy so these are just my thoughts. Existence is breath and anything outside that realm is a time capsule or dimension where life is suspended for whatever reason. Needless to say I don't believe in religion so there isn't a whole lot for me to discuss here
Click to expand...
I understand, and I appreciate, and value any sort of input. Let’s be honest, I’m just an internet weeb who does hard drugs, there’s no damn way I can’t learn something from others.

& Honestly, Theology has its many topics, but Philosophy has so much more. If you’re ever interested let me know, and I can shoot a couple links to some texts for it your way. Maybe even something that already aligns with your belief, I think it seems familiar to me.
 
Energy and matter, pure vibration, originating from so called source, may have a form of consciousness, and therefore possibly exist in a lifeless Universe.

But it wouldn’t be breathing air with a heartbeat. Those are basic mortal limitations and time clocks.

Just by having those handicaps installed, we are automatically mortal, weak, limited, temporary.

But the concept of existence cannot be restricted and confined to our conscious mortal lives only.

Because that’s all we know now, with peer reviewed scientific evidence (of the afterlife lol) being the rage these days, but to my mind, we’re talking theoretically about the potential for things to exist beyond our vision, this “world”, and I don’t mean Planet.

That’s a different discussion actually. Or maybe the same one. I don’t know.

I can’t believe though, that my energy, consciousness, or life spark will cease to exist beyond my X shitty years in a Satanically dominated fearmongering life destroying society.

I’ve always kind of believed in the so called afterlife. But I’m not keen on reincarnation. Kids….not too bright these days! Lol just kidding, and not.

I don’t think Spirits breathe O2 anyway. Life, as we know it, we don’t assume exists on Mars.
 
9th Euclidean Sphere said:
I’ve actually sent forth a donation to the site to get it changed, so that’s already in the works of being fixed. 🖤🙏🏻

I see “idiots” as an insult


I’m not open minded because I don’t speak to people who call others stupid for a belief nobody can prove 100%/disprove 100%?
I’m not open minded because I dislike talking with people who insult over Philosophical/Theological discussions?
No, that has zero to do with being a neurotypical, that’s not an excuse to be a blatantly disrespectful person. I myself am not nuerotypical, so just as you used “well I went here & that means I know this is a fact about all zen teachers of Advaita!!”
I return with, I am not neurotypical as well, and I know it’s NOT an excuse to be rude, it causes it yes, but when pointed out and still given it is my fault and mine alone. Not my mentals fault.

You get rather, and very aggressively rude when someone no longer wishes to talk to you, don’t you?

Which is ironic considering how a “hairless monkey” as you described yourself, would try to explain what is empirically incorrect, or correct.
With that, I’m out, peace ☮️
Click to expand...
See, for someone wishing not to, you talk a whole lot to me.
It makes me uncomfortable, but common courtesy forces me to reply further.

I don't think "idiot" is an insult, I see it for its psychiatric context, someone with diminished intelligence. That is in no way a bad thing, I think it's good that so many people can live in blissful ignorance, it makes life much easier for us.

No, not really. Me, the hairless monkey, is of the belief that putting the entire empirical system of science in the trash can and saying "whatever, none of that can be believed anyways" is an act of foolishness. Our entire world is built upon scientific discoveries, and without them you and I would not be able to communicate over this forum about how poorly chosen and hurtful towards any believer of any abrahamic religion your nickname is.
Honestly, if one lives in such an arrogant belief, they can just shut off from the world, technically, because deciding whether to believe my grandma if she had a cup of coffee this morning or not becomes sisyphos' work day. I'm not saying they're not free to believe what they want, I just don't think the choice to believe exactly that (to not believe anything) shows much intellectual capacity, which again, is not a bad thing. People have to stop being so fake-proud of being smart. Most of us are not, and I count myself towards the idiots of this world, since social situations are a mystery to me, and I suck at math.

Then let's talk about the Flying Spaghetti Monster. We're on similar paths here. Just because it can't be disproven, it should count as a legit religion? What's the exact ruling on this?
If one chooses to 'not believe anything that can be empirically proven', please, turn off your phone/computer, and stop using the internet, because that's disrespectful towards the scientists who built a system over millenia to bring us these technological wonders.
 
9th Euclidean Sphere said:
I understand, and I appreciate, and value any sort of input. Let’s be honest, I’m just an internet weeb who does hard drugs, there’s no damn way I can’t learn something from others.

& Honestly, Theology has its many topics, but Philosophy has so much more. If you’re ever interested let me know, and I can shoot a couple links to some texts for it your way. Maybe even something that already aligns with your belief, I think it seems familiar to me.
Click to expand...
Isn't philosophy based on what other people say or said as evidence or nonevidence for an idea to be valued? I think philosophy could only be used as a good waste of time for me
 
Gormur said:
Isn't philosophy based on what other people say or said as evidence or nonevidence for an idea? I think philosophy could only be used as a good waste of time for me
Click to expand...
It’s a Philosophy of the Mind with most of what I’ve said, while the other guy was using Science, & I’ll explain why trying to counter Philosophy with Science never works, at least more often than not.

With Philosophy there’s a multitude of different underlying subcategories, though all of them are essentially the same/yet different i’m these ways:
Different;
Science is about empirical facts, knowledge, or whatever. They theorize/hypothesize due to what they see.

Philosophy of the Mind is the area of philosophy which studies the nature and functions of the mind, thought, and consciousness, with attention to such topics as perception, reasoning, belief, memory, will, and identity.This is what EXACTLY the Philosophy of Mind is defined as ~ The study of the nature, causes, or principles of reality, knowledge, or values, based on logical reasoning / Theory or logical analysis of the principles underlying conduct, thought, knowledge, and the nature of the universe: included in philosophy are ethics, aesthetics, logic, epistemology, metaphysics, etc.

Science ~ Science is concerned with natural phenomena, while philosophy attempts to understand the nature of man, existence, and the relationship that exists between the two concepts.

Differences/Similarities:
Subjective and objective questions are involved in philosophy, while only some objective questions can be related in science. Aside from finding answers, philosophy also involves generating questions. Meanwhile, science is only concerned with the latter.
Philosophy creates knowledge through thinking; science does the same by observing.
Science is also a defined study, in contrast to philosophy, which can be applied to many extensive areas of discipline.

TL/DR;
Science is not about certainty. Science is about finding the most reliable way of It’s about overcoming our own ideas and continually going beyond common sense. Science is a continual challenging of common sense, and the core of science is not certainty, it’s continual uncertain thinking at the present level of knowledge.
Science is just as theoretical as Philosophy at times, Philosophy was the predecessor of Science, Science is considered a Philosophy Branch in ways.
The scientists who say “I don't care about philosophy” —it’s not true that they don’t care about philosophy, because they have a philosophy. They’re using a philosophy of science. They’re applying a methodology. They have a head full of ideas about what philosophy they’re using; they’re just not aware of them and they take them for granted, as if this were obvious and clear, when it’s far from obvious and clear.
~ The Universe: Leading Scientists Explore the Origin, Mysteries, and Future of the Cosmos. Copyright © 2014 by Edge Foundation, Inc. Published by Harper Perennial. TL;DR: Pasted from here.

Science and philosophy dwell in different realms, they are not opposed to each other or overlapping as badly as some try to frame in arguments, they are complimentary even, at times.
Science deals with matter and energy and their interaction or collocation. It explains how, never why, Science never becomes Philosophical. On the other side of that reflective coin though my friend, Philosophy has become Science before. ☮️🖤




The real TL;DR: They both have their meaning, and they’re both important in their own ways. That’s all, you can read the above if you wish, it’s just me rambling and citing some science physicists, and others.
 
For sure. Science came out of philosophy. I just find it easier to understand science (albeit limitedly) but that could be due to how my brain works or what I've been exposed to. Thanks for your response
 
Gormur said:
For sure. Science came out of philosophy. I just find it easier to understand science (albeit limitedly) but that could be due to how my brain works or what I've been exposed to. Thanks for your response
Click to expand...
If you ask someone who fully believes in say, Advaita Vedanta (Nondualism)
They’d say this exactly:
~ You can’t experience anything outside of consciousness.
~ Consciousness is the very ground of your existence; and the basis of your reality.
~ The content of your consciousness is ever-changing, but consciousness itself remains changeless and unlimited.

Due to these things, most humans are stuck in ‘samsara”, or the never ending cycle of seeking that which we crave. Knowledge, pleasure, an answer, anything,

I’ll leave with this question I actually enjoy from a Advaita Vedanta teaching:
• Take a moment to consider this. In any given moment, your senses are relaying all kinds of data, the pictures on walls, colors, TV’s, heat, cold, etc.
~ But WHERE are you actually experiencing this, where is it coming from? Yea, you’re conditioned to believe they’re objective in reality, and they’re 109% outside you
With the Advaita Vedanta belief, it is instead senses that are merely relaying signals, enabling you to experience representations of these objects in your mind.

Consciousness, pure awareness, is the eternal factor that can never be negated; your consciousness is eternal with all, and Brahman is the Eternal reflection you stand in.
When you realize this, truly realize this, Advaita teachers say you will shed samsara (eternal suffering for the pursuit of seeking) and find moksha, which is eternal freedom.
It’s simply a sense of freedom from limitation, freedom from suffering, brought about by knowledge of your self and reality as it actually is.

In the end, what is most contracting, hard to swallow, and nearly impossible for the ego to accept; nothing matters at all, because nothing but Brahman that eternal, never changing, multi faced supreme simply and will always be what IS


TL;DR: In a world where knowledge is power, the ultimate knowledge — Self Knowledge — is nothing less than liberation of the pursuit.
 
Existence is consciousness/awareness, energy and frequency. If one is not aware then one doesn’t perceive themselves to be existing.

If energy did not exist, then there wouldn’t be any momentum to create the phenomenon of existence itself. It can mean many things on many different levels. Because on another hand you can be unconscious about a great many things but they still do exist. But that does not contradict my initial statement because their are other aspects of this multidimensional universe that possess higher consciousness and therefore can still be aware of what you are currently unconscious of. So i guess what I’m saying is that existence can have very different meanings depending on if you are looking at it from an individual standpoint or collective standpoint. And also depending on how aware or unaware someone is.
 
So like when somebody says which came first the hen or the egg? My reasoning was always that the information came first rather than either of the two. How one measures that code or information and separates it from plain energy is what I don't know but it's interesting to think about. I don't necessarily think energy or atoms started from nothing but I also don't think life starts from nothing so how do I know where to begin?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top