Someone here

@Mason Riggle oh this again

@ZzzleepingBear @Tim R I certainly agree. What you mention is called representation in post-structuralist and narrative theories. Genrally speaking, information could be seen in the light of Aristotle's notion of Logos. It involves the data that appeals to human rational faculty.

@Mason Riggle thanks for reading

@roopepa you see..there is nothing to do. . but to play games. If you stopped playing every game.. Who would you be? Nobody as you were born.

Once you stop playing all the games.. What are you doing?

@Javfly33 bro enough of this nonsense.

@dflores321 "perceptual bubble" ? But doesn't Leo teach this stuff (that you are God all alone imagining everything). I think he is overexposed to Leo.

If you are not trolling then this is really sad to see

How to have more appreciation for what I do have in life instead of focusing on the negatives or what I don't have? What tips or practices help with focusing on positivity and the full half of the cup? I heard that positive affirmations help but what else? I really need to start counting my blessings

@iboughtleosbooklist thanks for the giggles

?

@mandyjw cute. Thanks.

@nuwu are you a bot?

Is there a problem with the being of the others? Heidegger has his concept of 'Mitdasein' and the idea of man falling into the averageness of 'das Man'. Sartre has his concept of 'the look' and says that there is a basic conflict between me and the other. Many great philosophers have seen the other as a problem that needs clarification. However, I am not so much interested in the phenomenological aspects of otherness, but in the metaphysical problem of foreign experiences: how is it possible that there are experiences that I never experience, so that they remain absent for me for ever. Or is it possible? My intuition tells me that all experiences are in the end my experiences so that there is a genuine symmetry of experiences, in the way 'TylerVo' also seems to think under the title “Could Separateness and Death be Illusions?” It is possible, of course, that my intuition tells me lies. Others are series of experiences, individuals. Other individuals are related to the individual that I am at present. If I did not exist, there would be no others either. The other is the other member of a relation which has me as one member. And because the relation is symmetrical, I am also the other. So I am an other to myself. I am in temporal and spatial relation to others. The others are in the world, but also in my past or future. Consciousness is my consciousness. It is a flow of experiences, changing of the present to a new present. Also the experiences of others belong to this flow, but because they are not my present experiences, they must be experiences that I have had in the past or experiences that I shall have in the future. I have this feeling and I know that also others have feelings. A feeling is however something that is present in the double meaning of the word as 'here' and 'now', the content of my existence as I am experiencing it. It is not meaningful to speak of a feeling that I am not feeling. But because the feelings that I meet in the world in others are not in the same way present as my present feeling is, they can only be feelings that I have had or shall have in those ”places” in time where others are. If I did not experience the experiences of the others, there would be experiences without experiencing. It is impossible to think of an experience which exists but which I do not experience. An experience that I do not experience is a being that is not. I am an individual that is composed of the experiences between my birth an death, that is, the experiences to which my present experience has a memory relation or which have a memory relation to my present experience. Other individuals are composed of experiences before my birth or after my death, that is, experiences to which my experiences have no memory relation and which have no memory relation to my experiences. Existence realizes itself by fragments of time that are temporally and spatially related to each other. That I am here and now, is a timeless truth. The present is a unique content mediated by the world, which, as it changes to another unique content, constitutes, mediated by memory, the unique series of presences that we call the individual. Individuals are series of experiences that, separated from each other by the loss of memory we call death, change to each other constituting on one hand the endless series of presences we call time, and on the other hand, as they meet each other and themselves as material objects in space, that totality of events that we call the universe. I meet myself in the others. This is not a metaphor. When I meet an other, I meet a moment in the endless series of moments, at the present moment of which I meet the other, and at a past or future moment of which I have been or shall be the one who meets me at the same meeting event. A and B see each other simultaneously in their common time in their common world. But in the time that connects these two experiences to each other as present experiences, one happens before the other. The other whom I meet am I, who meets an other: me. I know that others have experiences and I know that the other is an I, but something prevents me from seeing what grammar expresses: the I whom I meet am I. In these sentences 'I' does not refer to an individual but to the subject. This way of using the word intends to express the view that there is only one subject, and that the subject is always that which I am. When I speak to an other, 'I' refers to the individual that I am, and 'you' refers to another individual. That there is only one subject, has no expression in ordinary language. That only I exist, does not mean that the others do not exist. 'I' and 'the other' refer to the same point, but this identity realizes itself only through death. In life it does not express itself. When I live with others, the others are only others. The word 'I' has two meanings: 'the subject which has these experiences' and 'the individual that has these experiences'. When I speak, these meanings overlap so that I speak simultaneously as an individual and as a timeless subject. When someone else speaks, I think this someone is an individual that is foreign to me and whose inner world is closed from me, and I do not see that 'I' really refers to one point only: the present that changes its content and meets its past or future in the world, and to the past or future of which 'I' can also refer. When I use language I presuppose that there are in the world other individuals who understand me. However, language does not easily express the deeper meaning of the existence of others: my temporal relation to them. If we try, using language, to get closer to the deepest meaning of our existence, language comes to its frontiers illuminating reality with its paradoxes. Only by traveling outside of language can we see into the nucleus of existence. When I speak, I speak to others, and therefore I speak of things that are common to us in the world, and of myself as an individual, in relation to others. This is the region of language. But only a slight move, a change of perspective, opens up a new land, where things that are common to us become private, a land which therefore stays outside of language. Seeing this land reveals the deep union that has always been between us, and when walking on this land we understand, for the first time, the meaning of our existence. We have asked who the others are. We have also asked what will be after death and what was before birth. The answer to both questions is the same: after my death I shall be an other and before my birth I was an other. The thought that the other whom I meet am I, is, when thoroughly understood, clear but embarrassing. The existence of others is self-evident for us, because it belongs to the basic structures of our existence. We do not usually think what a strange phenomenon it is. When we communicate with others, we do not understand who they are. But we shall perhaps understand it some day in the silence of a forest, when our thoughts decide to start conquering the frontiers.

Really? Or does it just happen? When you say "I".. What exactly are you talking about? Can you point to it?

What makes you think you have control in the first place?

It depends on how you Define "you". You are a little construction in consciousness if you speak about the ego. But you are also consciousness itself. The whole of it. The construction can indeed change or die. But consciousness itself can never die. It just change forms. From self to other. Your body and other's bodies are equally objects appearing inside you as consciousness. No one is experiencing anything. Consciousness is not a property of you or others. You and others are equally objects illuminated by consciousness. Same. Creatures don't have consciousness. Consciousness have creatures. You flip into other each moment. You should know the answer.

?

we cannot see the past except for within our minds. There is no physical past or future that we can touch and/or interact with so it doesn't exist. In the present, be it silently or consciously consider all 3. It is a way we make a picture of the world. They exist as reflections of the present as the past is what composed the present. The present can only be in existence with this contradictory thing that is the past. I call it contradictory, as it is not physically there, yet it is the only way the present can exist. So this thing that used to exist is the past. This means that the past is the present, only that the present is the manifestation of the combination of 'pasts' which each in and of themselves are in the billions upon trillions upon quadrillions of frames in each millisecond. We could go into how anything can move in a moment at all though I would rather not. The future is the present since the future is composed of the present. We live in what forms it and also, the future is undetermined by the human mind. It is determined to happen by a preset number of causes, but we do not know exactly what will happen. Nonetheless, despite it being unknown, the future doesn't exist. It will exist, although it doesn't, as it has yet to occur. This means that it can only exist in the present as a figment of our imagination.

@Gianna thank you ?

I just truly discovered this notion of "wholeness", "unity" or "oneness" from non-duality. This idea is very frightening for me.. because it collapses my experience of reality. Awareness is all that there is.. every other thing is a mind-created concept So, Non-Duality is awareness itself. There is no separation of ego/thought or object/subject. Precisely because experience is all it Is.. and experience IS consciousness. There is no experiential state if there is no awareness, therefore "being" is all there truly is. This is without having this "I" that is assumed to be doing the experiencing. For some this mystical ego-transcendence is beautiful, because of the divine nature of it(How this pure state of awareness feels). And also because it is the ultimate truth. It is the true nature of nature. Duality is the greatest enemy to non-duality (Obviously). But get this, in order to reach non-duality you MUST purge the duality of the mind. So, having a firmly dualistic mind will not comprehend this in any way. Because non-duality is experienced, it is not known by a rational explanation. For the explanation of it is dualistic in nature, because language is dualistic and always implies separation. People engage in meditation to reach this perceptual change of awareness. My biggest fear is knowing that everything I have experienced up until now has been an illusion. A product of the mind's intrinsic tendency to dualism. Everything seems false, nothing is real. Truth is just one. Up until now my philosophical "truths"(Or any thought of that matter) have been dualistic. So, I reach some sort of existential crisis or nihilistic crisis in nature. Not only that, but all of my dreams, hopes, my personal realizations are far from truth. Any meaning becomes meaningless. It is not worth living for something at it is just a concept, a construct of the mind that separates me and true reality. In a crude way, it is all fake. I can't even think without separation so it troubles me more. I think the most terrifying thing is looking out into space and realising that that for the most part.. is reality - this yawning near-void filled with things that would kill you. Here we are.. little fragile Flatlanders hugging the increasingly disordered surface of one planet.. with the yawning hungry cosmos poised to take us all back.

From Merriam-Webster Dictionary: "Materialism: a theory that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all being and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or results of matter". “Everything is matter.” Who says so? I, the subject. And if there were no subject who says so, there would be no one for whom matter matters, and therefore there would be no sense in saying that there is anything at all, because being and its meaning are not separable from each other. Nothingness of meaning means nothingness of being. So there is at least (1) the subject's (2) consciousness of (3) matter, instead of matter only. All three components are necessary to make a satisfactory ontological picture of reality. That I, as the subject, could be somehow reducible to my objects, or that my consciousness of matter could be somehow reducible to what I am conscious of, is absurd. Matter matters to me, but nothing matters to matter. So by doing a simple phenomenological analysis of the being of matter we find that materialism is a self-contradictory position.

@Mason Riggle

I think you should start to accept that life can be fucked up sometimes. It's full tragedy not only beautiful things.