High-valance

Member
  • Content count

    43
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by High-valance

  1. I'm a little shocked by Leo's perspective on this. Lost a lot of respect for him there. Presumebly it's on avarage not as bad for men to get raped by women as it is the other way around but that does not warrent minimising it or making a joke out of it like that. This is disgraceful! What happened to love, compassion and perspective taking? Is this really the take of a highly conscious person? Minimising rape?!! Really?! Fucking really?! Come on!!
  2. I'd suggest checking out some of Bernardo Kastrup's work in case you aren't familiar with him already. He has many good books, many good interviews on YouTube, and a youtube channel deconstructing metaphysical/ontological physicalism/materialism.
  3. Thanks for your reply. I see what you mean, but, as I see it, there are dangers with everything. There are traps in everything into which we can slip upon the slippery surface of the Earth. Ignoring what I feel is my calling/purpose, it seems to me would be one of those traps. I think we should all follow our hearts, and I think to many, although maybe not to all, their hearts reside in their passion and art.
  4. Hi, I’m a 23 year old guy. I have some things I wanna ask and something I wanna share. While the title may suggest a dualistic polarity I am aware that these are synergistic. However, I do have a concern regarding a split focus on focusing between persuing my life pupose and a potentially conflicting focus on ’persuing’ awakening. I currently feel very inspired to persue my life purpose, as I feel that my passion and skill for my art is growing stonger over the years. Speaking of which, I want to say that while I have not followed through thoroughly on it, I have at least practised my art over the years, and I feel like sharing some of my experience with it thus far. Now, about three years after I took the course I’m fairly surprised with how much i’ve improved with my art. It makes me think, what’s possible in 10 or 20 years? And in case somebody is interested, here is a link to an article I recently wrote about philosophy, consciousness and reality which I’d consider the artform through which my high consciousness values and my relatively Teotlised heart can be communicated and shared. I’m actually quite proud of the article. http://www.integralworld.net/enbom1.html While I’m fairly determined to persue my life purpose now there is also a concern about sacrifising a more dedicated focus on awakening. It was recomended in the course to focus on life purpose before awakening in most cases, and to not focus on both of them simultaneously, and I feel right now that life purpose is more salient. However, I simultaneosly feel like I can’t ignore the spiritual path completely as my heart yearns for Love and for Truth. So I am a bit conflicted here, and not quite sure how to balance this. So any thoughts someone might have to share on this would be very much appreciated. There is also a concern on weather I should go to university to study philosophy or not. I’m seriously considering persuing a phd in philosophy, and while that is probably gonna help me master my field, and be benifiitial in other ways there is also an uncertainty of weather this is gonna be a waste of time, and just generally gonna do more harm than good. Any thoughts on this by someone would also be very welcomed.
  5. Well I think perceiver and perceived are seen as seperate as a result of intellectualisation. It's a conceptual abstraction. seen through in some deep meditative state, yes sure, but if aware of the false distiction it can become apparent as soon as one just is mindful of paying attention to it, and voila, the distinction is seen through. "If there is no light there won't be darkness!." Yes, indeed. Amen to that! The dialectical polar monism represented partially in the yin yang symbol for example.
  6. Glad you liked it. i'd like to ask you, how do you mean when you say that it appears to be outside or separate? And I'll take a look, altough QF is for the most part kind of outside my domain of understanding as of yet. But it is on the list of things to learn on that Life long Learning thing.
  7. Well sure, there are all kinds of dualities, but they are self-dual and collapse in in an absolute perspective. The percieved and the perciever are one. I'm suggesting that what is being percieved is not a mind-external environment, but rather a mental environment, numerically identical to the perciever of it.
  8. The phenomenal experience of feeling and hearing the wall are themselves perceptions. Merely closing one's eyes doesn't actually eliminate all perception, considering that we have 5 senses. So that doesn't really contradict the proposition. I'd suggest that if you're not experiencing the wall through any of the 5 senses then it does not exist as a wall with colors and certain ways it feels. Our sense experience is a representation of the so called 'external universe', but the external universe does not itself have those human-associated experintial qualities and textures such as sounds,colors and so on. That is a representation. It is a representation of trans-personal mental states. In other words, there is the noumena (the thing itself), but the noumena is itself phenomenal/mental, but while phenomenal/mental, not of the qualities in terms of which we experience the world.
  9. What i mean by consciousness is what in philosophy of mind is called phenomenal consciousness, roughly defines as 'an entity is conscious if and only if it is anything it is like to be that entity, some subjective way it feels like or appears for the entity. Alternatively, (and this gets at the same thing i'm trying to Point to) consciousness is 'that which experiences'. Regarding what I take to be a panphsycist view: While I Think that's better than materialism, it still is infering something that is not mental or something that is not mind/consciouness. Why is this necessary? In a dream at night you don't say that objects of the Dream world are themselves conscious, so why would we say that in the waking state? It seems unessesary? We might say that the inanimate universe as a whole corresponds to mental goings on, but not that the atoms on the screen of perception of which the appearance of the inanimate universe is comprised are themselves conscious/minded (assuming that this is what you're suggesting). If we can make sense of our shared basic and not so basic observations of reality in terms of only one thing (mind), then why postulate a second (matter outside mind of which its constituent parts supposedly are conscious? By way of analogy: When looking at the horizen you don't say that there is a shadow Earth beyond it, but rather just more Earth. In a similar way, why say that beyond our minds is a whole different type of thing (matter outside mind)? It seems unessesary. Here is a video of an articulation of a mind-only view of reality in case it is of interest.
  10. Thanks for the reply. I found it helpful and it resonated well.
  11. The key to understanding the walking through walls thing lies in the distinction made in philosophy between the phenomena and the noumena. Meaning the distinction between our experiences of reality and reality itself, or the things in reality themselves. According to materialism reality itself is unconscious matter outside mind. But in a mind-only frameworks the noumena is only mental goings on, from which our personal consciousness that we identify with is dissociated. This explain why we can't walk through walls or do other such things that the world does not comply with. And the thing about particles. In a mind-only framework particles are just what the noumena as trans-personal mind look like and presents itself on the screen of perception. Somewhat analogous to pixels on a screen. And as has already been pointed out by others but I'll put a little differently: there's no evidence for a materilist reality of matter outside consciousness. That is a theoretical abstraction, a concept in mind/consciousness. It's a theoretical inferance, not itself an observation.
  12. This Point about Walking through walls can totally be made sense of within a mind-only framework. The key to understanding this lies in the distinction made in philosophy between the phenomena and the noumena.
  13. This clip also highlights the dogmatic false skepticism of the stage orange materialist paradigm pretty well.