Breakingthewall

This operational shift is called enlightenment, not because you understand something you didn't understand before, but because your operating system was previously entirely integrated with your social identity, making it dense and dull. Its source of functioning, of creativity, was this structure built throughout your life. When you manage to separate this structure, the act of being itself takes center stage; it becomes the source of functioning and creativity, illuminating the psyche because there is no longer a dense structure filtering it. That structure still exists, but as an operating system, not as the essential core of your being.

I think that those who don't ask themselves these questions are those who are comfortable in the self, those who can't even intuit that it's possible to free themselves from it, and those who wouldn't want to do so even if it were possible because they are totally focused on it. There are many of these latter types in spirituality; they use spirituality to elevate the self.

Id say that the self with all that it implies, its entire narrative and attachments, its emotional needs for validation, status, and position in society, it reveals itself as secondary or not essential, not illusory. That is, it continues to be perceived as real. You know you have a body that can be damaged and a social position that will affect your reality. You don't want people to run away from you, nor do you want to live in misery, but that's not your essence; it's your circumstance. You've detached it from your system. As you've said many times, the problem is that the normal thing is to replace it with another identity: God, soul, whatever. This happens because your psyche needs that identity to avoid collapsing; it's not something you can choose at will. That's why when you say that identity is an illusion, I say no, it's a structural reality of the psyche created by evolution, and to be free of it requires a profound change on several levels. When the self is detached it's seen as not essential. you still exist but essentially you are not a or b, essentialy you are, what you are is the fact of being, and circumstancially you are a person, etc. but this is not something that you see and that's it, it's something that happens when that detachment happens, then the self is seen as circumstancial. This is a fundamental difference, you can't tell someone: look, the self is illusion, when you see it, you are free. No, because the attachment are real when they are operating in his system.

Yeah im not in your religion, that's why it's not nice for you sharing point of views with someone who doesn't know your dogmas. I understand, I'm sorry if I offended your beliefs. Thanks for the offering, im not interested for now in your religion, still preferring direct view

What means that? The exposure of your level? . Boring. So boring.

For example this: If the void is not contained or bounded, it is impossible for it to remain in a stable, flat state eternally, because then it would be limited to a flat state without fluctuation. Fluctuation occurs because it is a possibility; it is a breaking of symmetry that unfolds in a coherent equation that ultimately results in zero, a cycle that begins at zero and ends at zero and starts again and unfolds In infinite possibilities.

Existence didn't spawn, just is. It's not paradoxical at all, it's absolutely inevitable and logical How do you know that?

Science don't ask why reality exist but how it operates

Yes, I already did. Reality is because there are not limits. No limits are not the cause or reality, are what reality is. Then reality never started, it hasn't a source because it would be a limit, it is and that's everything. There is zero paradox, absolutely logical.

Nothing doesn't exist except as an idea. There is not nothing, then there is not paradox

Because existence doesn't came from, it is because nothing limits it. It is not caused, just is. Absolutely inevitable

@Inliytened1 what paradox is real, for example?

Paradoxes are ideas that are not paradoxical as ideas since they exist, but what they describe cannot exist. That's why are paradoxes. Paradox means incoherence, and incoherence only exist as an idea, as a conceptual model.

Paradox doesn't exist, only lack of understanding. If you see a paradox means that you didn't understand the coherence of the system

Why? A self is totally logical, very simple. Where do you see a paradox?

There are not paradoxes, just lack of understanding . Why do you think that there are paradoxes?

He says that the foundation of reality is "spirit", and that its development always tends toward systems of greater complexity. He also says that consciousness is a fundamental property of reality. The contradictions would be: 1. This spirit he speaks of would be something with characteristics and will. This will would be greater complexity. From an absolute perspective, there is no possible "greater complexity," there must be infinite complexity flowing in local cycles of creation and destruction. There is no tendency toward nor a will, since there is no causal arrow except at the local level. 2 The spirit he speaks of already introduces an impossible paradox: a conscious being with will, but unlimited. Consciousness and will are limits. Consciousness and will are local; they cannot be absolute. In the absolute, there are zones not subject to will or consciousness. How many? Infinite. The only possible will is the inevitability of the absence of limits. The only possible consciousness is that which arises in complex, self-referential systems. The only possible "spirit" is the total fact of being, absolutely cleansed of any quality except being, which implies everything. For me the view of Wilber closes the mind in a defined idea of reality as an entity, and this prevent liberation. The point is that a conceptual frame that put any subtle barrier is a total closure.

I have points of view, if I expose them here isn't not to convince you it's to see how you debunk them by logic, if you can. To find contradiction and mistakes

Scared about what? He's interested in spirituality, the point is not a competition about who's right but refine our vision, contrast any paradigm to see if it stands or it's a mistake , of contains any mistake

You cry a lot but then saying nothing. If you read so much Ralston sure you could explain his view

Have you reading willber? From what I read he's very inconsistent, not clear about the basis of his view .

They say that the ground is empty pure consciousness

The problem with Willber is similar to Ralston's and Buddhism . For him, ultimate reality is formless empty consciousness, and the world of phenomena is an illusory appearance within that consciousness. This description is wrong; it confines you to a dualistic mental boundary that apparently is non-duality. Ultimate reality is not formless empty consciousness; this is impossible since form exists. Ultimate reality is absolute being, the fact of being, which is no formless or form because it is what all forms are, it's not something separate from the forms. It's affirmative being, the quality of everything. Emptiness or formless are meaningless, just ideas. What is, is. Period. Being is everything, could be empty of form if you meditate but it's just an aspect of being, not different than form. "Formless empty consciousness" would be the state of being conscious of absolute being from the human form, which is also absolute being. I don't doubt that Ken Willber can access this state; the problem is that his explanation is flawed, a complete misunderstanding that will close the reader in a maze.

Real is an idea that happens in the self. The self exist, period. Nothing else. Any adjective is a closure

It's not an illusion, it's a reality. The self is all the system that creates differentiation. Without the self wouldn't be experience, everything would be the same. The point is not being focused in the differences but in the substance, but always from the self.