Vibroverse

I think you might be going through a process that i also went through, where you are projecting your own discoveries and journey onto those philosophers, where you also figured out the mystical and from there moved to the western philosophical systems where the focus is on more detailed conceptualizations, on models of reality. And i think you are right, in the sense that consciousness has the desire to expand and create, that it wants to put itself into games where there are more stricted rules and limitations, and then it wants to experience the thrill of moving through those obstacles, by creating obstacles first. But i want to caution you against a trap you may fall into which i also have fallen into to some, maybe to some great, extent, where you might get lost in all those conceptual frameworks and forget what it's been all about to begin with, if you know what i mean.

Yeah, i think you are right about this, also. I often feel like western philosophy has turned itself into a conceptual dictatorship instead of looking at the meaning underneath those concepts, and it's like that's where they get lost, mhm. It is like it has turned itself into conceptual objects turning into conceptual objects, ad infinitum, where the underlying meaning has become lost, like missing the obvious.

Yeah, i think you are right. And i sometimes feel like what they work on in specific and detailed ways is actually not any different, mechanically, then what anyone else is working on. It is like it is just that consciousness is opening itself up in those ways and realizing itself, in a sense, in those ways in their experiences, if you know what i mean.

I think it is because when you have a girlfriend, you stop radiating an energy of lack on that subject, and your new energy of "i'm already fulfilled" becomes what you radiate.

I probably wouldn't be this harsh on them, but i think you are right, in some sense. I have also gone through a process where i put them on a pedestal, thinking that they are such profound people. But the more i studied them from a relatively more neutral place, the more i recognized that they are actually not talking about stuff which i myself have not discovered. And i think i still can learn from them, because they might have delved into some subjects more deeply than i have, but the problem is when i put them on some sort of a pedestal and believe that they are somehow superior to me, and that they are more important than my own inner being and inner intuition of being.

Well, i think you're not appreciating the depth of the Buddhist philosophy, and doing an overgeneralization of it (like i did with the western philosophy before due to my angry mood at that time, haha), and saying that reality is an illusion necessarily means that reality is something we need to get rid of, and that reality is emptiness necessarily means it also is not fullness. You, in my view, are applying a very restrictive logic when you are thinking about this, and say that, in my own paraphrasing, one either turns inwards or outwards, and that stillness and dynamism exclude each other. And, in my understanding, and of course i might be misunderstanding it due to my own biases, i think that the buddha and schopenhauer were not actually talking about denying life, but they were talking about denying life as being lived by a self. And what i mean is, i think that what they are talking about is transcending duality, and letting go of the sense of a personal self being in a world that is separate from itself. When i read them, i interpret them as saying that this life and our actions are coming from our sense of duality, coming from and in the illusion, in that sense. And, of course, as i said, i might be misunderstanding or misinterpreting them, that's always a possibility, surely.

I see nietzsche as someone who can be a very important step in the process of awakening for some, in helping them understand that most everything you think you know have just been indoctrinations your society has brainwashed you with, and in understanding how society functions, as an entry level. And i think, as i understand and interpret it, schopenhauer was much more awake, in that sense, than nietzsche, and i think nietzsche misunderstood schopenhauer, and therefore buddhist thought, in that sense, and thought that it was a life denying thought, a life denying philosophy.

And by the way, yeah, bergson is on a whole another level when compared to most other wellknown philosophers, and i might, perhaps, put whitehead in a similar category with bergson, in that sense.

Well, we know that you cannot tell that difference in your dream state, so how are you so sure that you can make that difference here?

I don't think that sense experience comes first and then comes thought. I mean where can we even truly draw the line between sense experience and thought?

Yeah, i agree with you, to some extent. But i don't think that thoughts of those schools that you've mentioned are the center of today's discourse. Of course, the focus on inner experiences and subjectivity has been increased pretty much especially after the german idealism and romanticism, especially through phenomenology and what we may call the postmodern thought. However, the focus on subjectivity and emotions are being taken into account merely as phenomenological analyses and the influence of culture on being, not necessarily in an awareness of deep spirituality where the deeper levels of thoughts, in the direction of mysticism. But, of course, this is a deep subject about which we need to talk in more depth for it to start making sense to us. And of course my criticism is cliche and shallow, because how deep can we get in a forum where we are communicating through a few paragraphs at most with each other.

And, sure, i'm in no way an expert on them, but i've studied all of them to some extent, and i also agree that those names such as hegel, jung, etc, are pretty important, and i think i've learned a few things from them. I mean, i also agree with you in that i also think that they have discovered the mystical dimensions of being, especially hegel and jung, amongst the names that you've mentioned. But i also, in some sense, think that they might not have been aware of what they have discovered. The sense that they give me is that, yes, they have discovered "this", but they have become so focused on expanding from "this" that is the ground that they don't even talk about it, because, perhaps, they don't even understand that they got it.

Yeah, you're right, i sorta made an overgeneralization. Of course there are thinkers who have some awareness of the mystical dimensions of being in the western philosophical tradition, also. It is true, but most of those thinkers don't seem to understand the importance of feeling as some sort of a divine guidance. We see such ideas more in the eastern philosophical tradition, even though they might have nuanced ways of explaining it. But almost no philosophers in the western tradition talk about, for instance, the importance of meditation and intuitive thinking, so to speak. The general trend is to talk of something called "reason" through which we are supposed to find the truth, but when you dive into that concept more, you begin to see that it is a pretty problematic concept, and noone actually knows what the heck they mean by that concept.

Western philosophy, most most mostly, has no idea about the dimension of being which we might call the mystical. Trying to find the "right path" without understanding the compass of feeling and inner awareness, to be honest, is just absurd.

He is the reincarnation of Kant.

A Hegelian conceptualization of science might help you.

Tom is a good mentor.

The quantum field is how consciousness appears to itself at its deeper levels.

Yeah man. To be honest, i want it to write itself where, in a sense, it becomes a self writing like some sort of a channeling from the divine. Talking about nondoing through my experience of nondoing, in a sense, if it kinda makes sense to you ?

But if he is infinite, he cannot be something and not the opposite of it. If he is infinite, he then needs to be both that which has free will, and also the opposite of it. Infinite, in the sense of being absolutely infinite, means being transcendent to all qualities, one of which being that which has free will. God cannot be one thing and not the other, but in your experience he might be known as that which has free will as your knowing of it.

If God is perfect eternally, then how can God have free will? I mean shouldn't God always, necessarily, in a sense as Leibniz says, choose the most perfect path in every moment? And also, if God is the entirety of being that is all inclusive, then how can God be free to choose this over that? Because that would imply that God will not include one of those choices in its being to the degree that God involves the other choice in its being.

Cool, that would probably be a book i would like to read, and i will basically write about similar themes to yours also.

I may also write a book someday about philosophy and spirituality, but i don't have a published book yet. What do you wanna write about more specifically?

Yeah, i agree.

It is hard to see evil as love at the conventional level of reality though, but yeah, at the ultimate level all is the self, a reflection that is reflecting itself. And the divine is very weird.