Vibroverse

No, I'm saying the exact opposite of that. I'm saying that happiness does not come from changes in our conditions, I'm saying that changes in our conditions come from our happiness. And the happier you feel the happier your reality will be.

How do you think your state of being will become those things that you desire, you silly? You talk as if there is an out there that will make you happy, but the out there is your state of being.

i will be happy.

Instead of saying "it seems like we cannot find a solid ground to say something is beautiful, because proofs and the direct experience of beauty don't seem to be supporting one another, meaning, you cannot never prove to me, objectively, why you experience something to be beautiful. and yes, we can trust the ideas of the experts more on this, but still, no matter how much expertise you have in the field of reasoning, there will still be a gap of explaining 'but why does x necessarily lead to y". there will always be an explanatory gap there, for x and y are two different phenomena of consciousness, and, it seems like, you need to have some sort of 'faith' to say that x and y are objectively connected to one another. so, it looks like the aesthetic experience, and aesthetic judgment cannot be grounded on an objective basis, but instead, it seems to be about the subjective experience and reflection of the individual".

Helena Blavatsky.

Reminds me of Bashar, in a sense.

I don't know if rationalism and empiricism actually are two different things, or they actually are the two sides of the same coin. Because even the most hardcore empiricist creates the concept of empiricism which you cannot find in your mere observations of reality. Nowhere in nature you can find the argument that knowledge can only be gained empirically, so you need to be able to have that capacity of conceptualization first in order to come up with those concepts that you come up with. And another question is, how do we create a true distinction between the objects of the mind and the objects of the world to know which one came first? How are we even able to differentiate thinking and being from each other? How do we even tell the difference between our mental processes and the physical processes, with a clearcut distinction? So, I think, the best we can do is approach these ideas with a pragmatic perspective, because you cannot even distinguish, at the ontological level, reality from thought. What is the exact line of distinction between reality and thought?

@Someone here try psychedelics if you can, and also deep meditations and contemplations. if you cannot try psychedelics for some reason, it's okay, continue with deep meditations and contemplations, and the psychedelics will find you someway somehow, if you truly need them.

Is the manifestation of the idea of A not being equal to A.

@Wilhelm44 yes, A is infinite within itself, and therefore it includes its finiteness also within itself, for its infiniteness also contains, and is, its finiteness.

@Wilhelm44 yes, and I'm saying that it's the level of "illogicality", and by definition it is "illogical", and therefore it is the point where language cannot touch for it can only talk about that which can be represented in a way that can be perceived as "something" in our minds.

What I'm saying is deeper than that, A in the same point in time and space is not equal to A, but that probably is a very darn deep dimension of being that it is almost completely irrelevant and meaningless from where we are. Zeno and Parmenides, in my opinion, might be some of the rare ones in the history of philosophy who got this idea.

@Someone here You can achieve omniscience.

@Someone here what is it that you're really trying to understand?

That's the point where I imagine to be a difference between me and God, even though it, of course, is not an ontological, a substantial, difference, and give God the role of a guide, guiding me away from my stupidity, in a sense, in a way that makes sense to me.

Yeah, you're so good at playing it that you've lost the awareness that you're playing it. And yes, you also are so infinitely intelligent that you can use that infinite intelligence of yours to experience infinite dumbness. And yes, us experiencing being human seems to be a part of that "project" somehow ?

You're right, that's why you're playing the game of not being omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent. That would give you an infinite nervous breakdown.

I'm not asking anything, I'm just saying that there is a level of being where A is not equal to A. And you can understand what omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence means if you can understand "that".

You can reach total omniscience, about each and every atom and thing that exists, if you are that from which everything "emanates", but consciousness, in the form of being an individual human, probably would not be able to grasp all of that information, so a filtering is happening to make you that which is you as the individual human.

Are you sure that the dream Leo and the "real" Leo are two different beings, other than you believing and imagining them to be two different beings?

Leo's most original idea is his idea of being Leo.

Discovering, creating, new "things", and talking about them.

It depends on where you are. I think philosophy, or any other human endeavor, has any intrinsic value in and of itself, so, in that sense, I have a very pragmatist perspective. If studying philosophy gives you the experience of depth that you're searching for, then yes, you can study it. But I think, ultimately, nothing can give you that fulfilment that you're looking for other than yourself.