Nemra

If you had only done what your body needed, you'd be just an animal. However, you are doing things that you want to do, e.g., posting in this thread or another thing. So, you're being disingenuous with me. By the way, no matter how much you say not to control the body and mind, you have control over them in ways that aren't obvious to you immediately. Sure, you don't have direct control of your organs. What you said isn't a serious justification for not meditating or doing psychedelics.

Do you understand that food is something that your body needs? Everything includes food. You said surrender everything, which means to surrender your hunger.

Surrender eating food. 😉 That's your logic, not mine.

If you surrender everything, your body will stop functioning.

@Leo Gura, do you think having a technical job can help one develop rationality?

@Leo Gura, nice share! I haven't finished "Awakening from the Meaning Crisis" yet, but I can't wait to watch "After Socrates".

By your logic, you should also surrender meditation. Well, do what you want, but at least be coherent and honest with yourself. There could be other legitimate reasons why you wouldn't or shouldn't do meditation or psychedelics without justifying it with your beliefs or ideology.

😁 Yeah, psychedelics are serious stuff. My pleasure.

@Mellowmarsh, psychedelics might be of help. The profoundness of the trip would likely shock you. I don't feel quite confident to formulate an answer now, because I only had two profound trips, and I barely began understanding it. However, if you do, your state will change, and you might have an awakening.

That's the question. I am as mesmerized as you. However, it's been getting obvious that I don't know lots of stuff. I'm not just telling myself I don't know; it shocks me to the core. I think that I'm slowly integrating my psychedelic trip. I have been feeling the same way.

Thinking being a thing doesn't invalidate its functionality. If you don't think, things don't suddenly not exist. Also, we have to differentiate between things as construction and the thing itself. For example, thoughts themselves aren't constructs. Their existence doesn't depend on construction. Yet you can construct, deconstruct, reference stuff just by thinking.

It seems that I made it confusing and perhaps my phrasing was bad. What I wanted to say is that the thing that identifies with thoughts is the same thing that identifies with anything. If you can identify with thoughts, then there's nothing stopping you from identifying with everything.

The character development made sense. I loved that I couldn't predict the storyline, which made me totally immersed in it. The characters had believable justifications for their actions. I understood why they would lie and I had to be cautious to see through everyone's lies. There were a few characters I would never side with, but I would empathize with the other ones even though they were all corrupt. It was interesting that they all lost in their own way. It showed how being desperate affected the characters' lives. I watched the whole series a few times, and each time I viewed the characters a bit differently.

I mean that the thing that identifies must be the same for anything that is being identified with. From my birth until I was some years old. I don't know what I was doing before my unconsciousness. I could have been some alien, I don't know.

Why should I describe it? It's about identification. Because I didn't have the ability to be conscious.

No. It is direct.

The same thing that can identify with thoughts.

You have the ability to know. If the I is already known, then you would have had to know it before not knowing it. However, you didn't know it in the beginning. Although, we can assume that we know things.

If I only were the thoughts, then I wouldn't exist when I didn't think. However, that's not the case.

When you don't think. My worldview is intact even when I'm not thinking or having thoughts.

You don't have to walk to be the walker. Likewise, you can be thoughtless while being the thinker, even though you are not thinking.

You are diverging from your main disagreement with me, which is the following: Let's not pointlessly argue. And frankly, your thoughts are too choppy, which confuses me.

Why, in the first place, were you able to identify with thoughts? Think about it.

Aren't you thinking, writing and walking?

I agree that the self can be built on top of constructions. But if you can know that something is a construction, then knowing itself would be beyond constructions. I don't know that when you never think, you would eventually be conscious of nothing. Maybe. However, thoughts can point to those things. We are using our thoughts now. If it's not experience, then the "nothing" never happened. So, you can't even say that you know what nothing is. I don't agree that thoughtlessness necessarily is equal to "nothing".