Someone here

I think that's a great way of articulating the problem. My guru told me "any answer you get from the outside is false.look within ". Isn't that itself an outside authority telling me what is true and what is false ?

I'd go as far as to say there is no thing in direct experience which might be an actual perception of "now". There is no solidity to anything.

Thank you . Chatgpt: Your perspective is interesting because it blends epistemology (how we know truth) with phenomenology (how experience appears). Philosophically, it contains several strong intuitions but also some tensions and questionable assumptions. Below is a structured critique. 1. The Core Claim: Truth Requires Persistence You suggest that truth depends on persistence in experience, which you equate with memory. Philosophically, this resembles ideas from: (experience and pragmatism) (temporal structure of consciousness) (ideas as copies of impressions and habits) Critique: Truth vs recognition Persistence may be required for recognizing truth, but not necessarily for being true. Example: a one-time cosmic event can still be true even if never remembered. Memory is fallible If truth depends on memory, then truth inherits memory’s unreliability. Philosophically, truth is normally defined independently of human cognition (e.g., correspondence theories). Category confusion You are blending: Truth (a property of propositions) Experience (a phenomenological event) Many philosophers argue truth belongs to statements about experience, not experience itself. This tension would be criticized by analytic philosophers like . 2. Constructions as Memory-Based Templates Your idea that concepts like chairs are persistent templates applied to experience aligns with several traditions: — categories structuring experience — meaning through language practices modern predictive processing theories of perception. However, there are problems. Problem: Conflating concept formation with truth The fact that a concept persists does not make it true. Example critique: “Unicorn” is also a persistent conceptual template. Persistence alone does not validate ontological status. So persistence might explain how we organize experience, but not why something exists or is true. 3. The Claim that Experience Itself Is Absolute Truth You argue that the existence of something happening is undeniable. This resembles Cartesian certainty: — “I think, therefore I am.” However, your formulation is closer to: “Something is happening.” Strength This is a powerful minimal epistemic certainty. Philosophically similar to: Husserl’s phenomenological givenness some forms of phenomenological realism Critique Even here there are challenges: Who or what experiences? If everything is construction, the subject itself might be constructed. Buddhist and phenomenological critiques Traditions such as Buddhist philosophy argue even the notion of "experience" is conceptually imposed. Self-referential problem If everything that delineates reality is a construction, the statement itself is also a construction. So the theory risks self-undermining skepticism. 4. The Construction vs Raw Experience Distinction You propose that truth might lie in non-constructed experience. This is philosophically controversial. Many philosophers reject the idea of pure, unstructured experience. Example: famously criticized what he called the “Myth of the Given.” His argument: There is no raw, uninterpreted sensory given; all perception is conceptually structured. If Sellars is right, your project of finding non-constructed truth may be impossible. 5. The Red Example Your question about redness touches a classic problem in philosophy of perception. Is redness: a physical wavelength? a neural process? a phenomenological quality? Philosophers call this qualia. Key issue: Even if the experience of red is immediate, the concept of red still structures how we interpret it. So the raw/constructed distinction becomes very difficult to maintain. 6. The Distinction Problem Your final question is philosophically deep: “Anything that delineates reality is probably a construction. But isn't reality just distinctions?” This resembles ideas from: — Laws of Form structuralist and Buddhist philosophy. Critique: If all distinctions are constructed, then: either reality itself is constructed or our access to reality is necessarily constructive. Both undermine the possibility of pure non-constructed truth. Overall Evaluation Strengths Your framework captures several important insights: perception involves pattern recognition concepts are socially transmitted constructions minimal certainty may lie in the existence of experience These align with phenomenology and cognitive science. Weaknesses Key philosophical issues: Truth vs cognition confusion Persistence explains recognition, not truth. Persistence criterion too weak False beliefs can persist. Unclear notion of “raw experience” Many philosophers reject its existence. Self-undermining skepticism If all distinctions are constructions, the theory undermines itself. ✅ A stronger version of your theory might say: Experience is structured through persistent interpretive patterns. Truth is not persistence itself, but stable successful coordination between interpretations and experience. This would move your view closer to pragmatism. If you'd like, I can also: show which existing philosophical positions your view is closest to, or help formalize it into a coherent philosophical theory (because it’s actually close to several modern cognitive theories of perception).

Yes I agree ..language is a huge part of the conundrum. What is language? A commony agreed upon verbal to describe objects ..what are objects without names?

Isn't this question begging ? My question is if you strip away all notions of base reality and also the notion of truth itself along with all of language and concepts and everything you've been taught by others ...then what is left ?

Thinking itself can never be 100% original. I made this point before . Observe yourself thinking ..you are always moving through concrete pathways and spefic lines of reasoning...all of which are not coming from within you from scratch but from others or external sources...not necessarily all of it .I conclude the only thing that is self-evident is raw qualia .

Thank you . Guide me through an example of contemplating from scratch about "what am I?".

@Sincerity an example of that absolute independent knowledge you're speaking about is the raw qualia I'm experiencing now (stripped of all interpretation and conceptualization ) ?

The true knowledge you come to know personally can never be 100% independent from everything that you've heard from others. I will think about this . Needs testing.

Can there be contemplating for myself from scratch ? I think it is impossible and nonsensical. I have to use a certain language like English. Even the logic I go through is borrowed from other resources..like books I've read or videos I've listened to. But also in the other side what's wrong with having presumptions while contemplating?

I've been contemplating this recently and I wish to share this with you guys . Anything I come to know from the external world is prone to error and falsehood . It can never be trusted as an absolute truth.. Because of the very fact that it is derived from the outside world ..which automatically means it has been known by others and now delivered to you..but if it is not derived by you personally..how can you trust it ? Even if Leo or your Guru tells you something.. you should never trust it but you should validate it in your own direct experience..including this very advice from me right now..and this just goes on in a circle and becomes obsessive and meaningless. Like "this statement is false". I think it's a very nasty epistemic problem. This entanglement of everything . just the fact that obviously everything everywhere across all places..and in all dimensions or times or whatever ..everything is interconnected. Like for example you cannot separate the observer from the observed..Or this moment from the next moment . Etc . If you ask AI or Google about any question or information then you have to be skeptical ..because what the hell is the very origin of that information and how was it known at all ? Likewise you can't trust other people. Truth has to be derived personally. But aren't I creating a false duality here which is just circular and absurd? Because there cannot be a personal experience without an other experience..and the two are tied Togther. And if you push this inquiry further to the ultimate end you arrive at the conclusion that since self =other or at least interrelated then it doesn't matter whether you go through the work of discovering truth or whether your Guru spoon-fed you it . It's tricky.

What begins must end . What was born must die. What didn't begin can't end .what was never born can never die .

You "completely break free " every night when you enter into deep sleep..at least temporarily. Deep sleep gives you a glimpse or a little taste of absolute freedom and obviously of formlessness and unconditional self. Yes ..right now I am a finite human being apparently. But I've had many glimpses in the past that being a limited form like that of a human is not the ultimate nature of myself ..and I'm sure you too have had.

Yes it is . "The truth shall set you free" instead of making you more attached to egoic tendencies . Truth is not about adding relative or conceptual knowledge to yourself..nothing wrong with that but that's just the opposite of enlightenment . The truth we are seeking is remembering our unconditioned state which is prior to our birth in these bodies . Because we are conditioned right now by being a body and a mind living in a world of lack and responsibilities and problems. All these things don't please or entertain anyone on this earth. Because it doesn't resonate with our unconditional self which is free of everything. And you won't find true fulfilment without remembering who you really are. By seeking more conditioned knowledge you are actually deepening your conditioning and bondage instead of breaking free.

Sure no worries..you will pay for the Shisha though 😂 Is that you escaping from answering my questions though ? Because I take that as "I don't know".