Vibroverse

may also just be total bullshit like religions and woo woo spiritualities, mind fantasizing stuff and getting lost in its modellings.

@Adamq8 @Carl-Richard I've lost sense of what philosophy even is talking about. I mean, it is like it is not philosophizing that matters, but it is, like, under the domination of a certain mode of language and conceptualization that what has become important in philosophizing has stopped being about what it is even talking about, and it has become, like, an abstract language that refers to, and talks about, its own concepts. I mean, what matters in philosophy, in my opinion, is the meanings those concepts are referring to, not the concepts in themselves, but to me it feels like philosophy has long left meaning behind, and has become a process of referring to the concepts within concepts within concepts. I mean, what is the purpose of philosophy anyways, if it is not helping you in becoming your true self, but instead becoming a never ending analysis of something that just is? What is the purpose of it if it is not helping one to attain peace in their lives, but is just being a conceptual loop that gets lost in itself? Why should I, then, care about that mode of "knowing" instead of a mode of knowing that "means" something to me, that helps me attain peace and beauty in my life? Why should I become, in a sense, a part of that "industry" instead of following my own heart and peace and intuition that really says something to me? Why that game, or any other game, really, should be seen as the top game that is "the only representative" of the "highest knowledge"? Why should I be attached to anyone, or anything, or any modality of being, in that sense, just for the sake of finding balance with their language and game that is just another form of existence? Why should I be a member of a certain group of a mode of thinking, including the "philosophical" thinking? That's because they've convinced me that their fucked up game, that is just a self referential loop, without even being aware of it, is the highest game in town. But when you truly analyze it, and truly look at it, you cannot find anything but just being in it that just is being itself, as any other forms and modes of being. That's just a system that criticizes the system, but it itself becomes another system. That's the, in my opinion, the hidden oppression factor in any system of thinking that defines itself as the way, and becomes its own authority by othering all the others who don't obey that authority. And the world of philosophy, as I see, is not any different than that, really. That's, in a sense, a system that defines itself to be critical of itself and free, but it is not how it is in practice. Both science and philosophy, and every other system of "knowing", in that sense, has become a dogmatic system in itself, and is not open to different ideas at all, really. It is because, for them, it is their mode of being and "knowing" that matters, not a geniune desire to understand more and help each other expand our consciousness. It has become something that has enclosed itself in a certain mode of thinking and perception.

Thinking about this, what would happen if I was in a state of constant awareness of my breathing, like 24/7.

I think the best philosophy might be the "extremes" the postmodern philosophy that thinks of philosophy as another sets of stories, not more real or "valid" than the stories of the Greek Mythology.

It doesn't matter whose breath it is really, or whether it is noone's breath, what I'm talking about what would happen, would be body and mind still be doing what they are doing without needing "me"?

If you think of existence as that which is itself, as that which creates itself by being itself, then there can be a universe that destroys all universes including ours, but, again, when you think of it as that which is itself, then it, again, can reform itself, for it is "nothing" from which it is made. I mean, maybe that destruction of all universes already happened two minutes ago, but nothingness, out of nothing that it is, reformed itself as this universe and the sense of an unbroken continuity where it is just another normal day where I'm writing this to you.

Yeah, I find Heidegger's approach pretty honest, and meditative, and he said that Zen Buddhism has already said everything he wanted to say. I find his approach of perceiving reality as it is without going for metaphysical grand narrarives to be very innovative in the western philosophical tradition.

I think we can see the embodiedness of the being in the world in Spinoza, to some extent, and in Hegel, also. I think, especially Hegel, took a great step in that, and criticized Kant for abstracting the subject from the world by all his categories and ideas, and said that we need to be perceiving ourselves in and as the world, seeing being as one consciousness that is being, and becoming, itself. I mean, he said that we cannot distinguish being as phenomena and noumena for we do not even know whether such a thing as noumena exist or not, and he thought that there is no such thing as an atemporal mind, that mind is a historical thing, that human is knowing itself in the process, and in fact he, I think, was the first one who used the term "dasein" to emphasize the being-in-the-fenomenal-realmness. And, of course, this is a deep discussion for now where we should also discuss about Kant and Heidegger, and these guys, in more depth, so I don't wanna get lost in this now. But to turn back to main question, I'm thinking of it like this: for instance, let's take Spinoza and his rationalism. I think, at the ultimate sense, if we think of Reason, Nature and God as the same "thing", then, I think, we can say that everything can be known by Reason alone, then. Mind, then, would be one with God, at the ultimate level, and so mind would be able to find every answer of every question without needing to take any empirical steps, in theory. I think Leibniz says something like this also, but then he also says that we humans are all, pretty much, empiricists when we come to the practical level of being, in gathering knowledges. The thing, then, I guess, is rationalists like Spinoza and Leibniz, perhaps, would agree that every knowledge can be gained through reasoning and thinking alone, for mind exists by its "being-informed-ness" by God at its core, and God knows everything that can be known, but we, being humans that we are in the certain modes of being that we are, need empirical data and analysis, also, for, perhaps, out of habit.

Well, I think the thing with me is, first I wanna find my grounding on the practical level, solving my practical level questions about my individual life, and then I wanna dive into the world of philosophy with a clear mind and beingness.

Allowing yourself to receive help from thinking, instead of making thinking, like, a conceptual trap in itself.

Yeah, you're right. Well, sorry, I think there have been great thinkers in western philosophy when I'm thinking with a clear mind, but it can seem to be complicated when you look at it with an unclear mind, I guess, as you said, in a sense, like everything else. You know, then, yeah, I myself am also a part of the cosmic stupidity. But yeah, I feel mad at those guys when I'm in an angry mode, I guess, and it is not really about them, but it is about my perception of them, at least to a great extent, really.

But, in general, philosophy seems to be another form of stupidity like all other human endeavors and thinkings.

I love you, me, but I hope you understand why I'm fuckin freaking out ? Maybe it's just because I'm a fuckin idiot, or fuckin got lost in my mind, trying to "understand" the shit with my mind.

But, as another sneaky bastard, I wanna say that you, then, have never taken any DMT a day in your life ? Dude, I feel that there is no chance for mind to get this, for it is concepts within concepts within concepts. The concepts are pointing to "something", yes, but what are the concepts other than "that", then?

Is there such a thing as a question?

But aren't you yourself, also, a figment of the mind, and am I not myself, also, a figment of the mind? Then is the mind itself also a figment of the mind, like you saying God is the creator of itself? Then if it is creating itself, it is zero, and therefore zero is something, and therefore a is not equal to a, for a and "equalness" also are self creating, and yeah, this is a strange loop that is itself, okay, okay, fine ?

However, it is so finely structured in itself, by the "beingness" of itself, that it "becomes" a process. This is the process where "you" become an "other" to yourself to "discover" you. And another question is about the possibility of the idea of other alternate realities, as it is often described. Is it possible for being to be itself in a mode of infinity? I mean, in this opinion, reality is described as vibration, as energy, or, you might say, perceptivity. So, the question is, can it be possible for being to be "not being", by being "being"? If we think of it in terms of perceptivity, as perceptivity being itself, then it "seems" possible for perceptivity to be itself, by not being itself, in a "mode" of temporality, in a mode, in a weird sense, in a sense, of a "processness". If we think of reality as a "densified" modal structure of "dreaming", then is there a way "out of" the perceptible structure of being "beingness" where it also, in a sense, is "otherness"? Can there be a "reduction" point of being "beingness" where you, for instance, find yourself as a cat, and as that which has, in that sense, "always" been a cat, where the modality is, for lack of a better term, modulating itself into "being" itself? Can, at least in "theory", infinite spatiotemporalities exist, in some "plausible" way without being self deferrent, like, on the ontological level, other modalities of "the" modality? And it, perhaps, is possible if one is implied, by definition, in the one. And that's the "weird" question that I'm thinking about, that is it possible for "being" to be when it is, in that modality of being "being", to be? I, in that sense, "think" of reality as, like, a frame that has zero distance to itself, in the sense that the "subthinkings" also are itself. Then, I wonder, if space can also be included in "that" where it makes sense. There is an undeniable "perception" of volume and tactility, but if it, with space, a "movement" of consciousness, then what does it even mean to take up a space? The other question, then, is the role "temporality" plays in the "picture". If consciousness, in some way, somehow, experiences itself in the, what we might call, dream modality, then is it possible, perhaps, somehow, to include itself "without" including itself? The question of spatiality, in that sense, is an important question. Is it possible for "being", somehow, to "become"? And is it possible for "it" to carry its own "temporality", in that sense, in, for lack of a better term, itself? I mean, as I talked about it in my "cat" example before, is it possible for me, for instance, to become that cat, as that which has always been that cat, in terms of carrying the spatiotemporality, in "theory", as a mode of being? And do you understand the "problem" of spatiotemporality that I'm talking about here, in the sense of being it another mode, or another, change of being? I mean, then the question is the volume of being, the tactile qualities, in a sense, of being. And there also is the question of being being its own self creativity. That implies a randomness, but the question is the nature of randomness. Doesn't being self creative imply that self is self being self creative? I mean, imagine a possible reality, a possible world, perhaps, where the inhabitants of that world call what we call cats dogs, and what we call dogs cats. Now, the question is whether that "frame" of thinking includes its own spatiotemporality in itself as "existence"? I mean, imagine a world, even, where pokemons are moving around and people own pokemons. Does "that" carry its own spatiotemporality in itself as "existence" for you are able to talk about "that"? I mean, then, is it "nothing", no pun intended, but consciousness that holds "this" together instead of holding, at least in our spatiotemporality, "that" together? And what is the "structure" of "beingness" that is "that"? I mean, is reality self creating itself as the "physical" forms that it is, itself, also? I mean, can it, or does it, sustain itself without being, in that sense, itself? And the big question is whether the self "formulation", in itself, also, formulating itself? The "crazy" question is can consciousness "become" the world without "becoming" the world? Can consciousness "perceive" itself in a different modality where it is being the idea of "reality"? Can consciousness "maintain", in a sense, both abstraction and tactility by "being" the tactility? Can it, somehow, be possible, and "good", if it, "by nature" is itself? I mean, can there be a "mystical" gateway there? We can, perhaps, ask it as "can you get into the dream state by being that which, in itself, is not the dream state?". And how does the idea relate to that which is not the idea, being the idea of not being the idea, being that which, in its modality, "being"? And, then, the question is can the spatiotemporality carry with itself the quality, as we, in a sense, talked about it before, of that which is "not" the spatiotemporality, in its mode, and "modedness", perhaps, of being? It, then, "also", becomes the question about the nature of "intelligence". Can, and if so, how can that which is "also" be that which is "intelligence"? That, perhaps, refers us back to what thinking, in, and of, itself, even is. I mean, can that which, in that sense, is "intelligence" be that which can be "intelligible"? Is it possible for "intelligibility" to be "intelligibility" by "being" the intelligibility as we talked about it, as being the intelligibility that it is? I mean, is intelligibility "included" in that which is, in "that" sense, not intelligibility? And if being, in "that" sense, can converge towards it being itself, then is it possibility to find itself in, or being, "that" modality that it is? I mean, does intelligibility, then, is the "thatness" in itself without, perhaps, being that which is "itself" that "discovers" itself as that which is, that also is that which is not, in the, in that sense, modality that it is "itself"?

The idea that reality is created in the moment is kinda "crazy". Me being a human instead of being a cat, for instance, being actually created in the moment. The words and concepts and structures and knowledges being created in the moment. The memories being created in the moment. What the fuck are we even talking about if the entire reality is "building" itself in the moment, even the habits of our mental patterns being "built" in the moment? What, then, is the "thing" that creates this moment to be this moment, creating the realm of what we call "relative" level "instead of" the "absolute level? How is the"relative" level of time and space and continuity "create" itself out of that which, we say, is timeless, and out of the realm of historicity? How do you even have patterns of thinking if there is no time, for a pattern implies, obviously, a continuity in time? I mean, I know that at some point, soon probably, I will say that "okay, existence is paradoxical and 'illogical', deal with it", I know. I mean, yeah, but we cannot deny that there is an order and structure going on also, and what we might call "feeling" is important in the equation. If reality is consciousness, then, obviously, what you call feeling is telling you about the state of being through which you're "imagining" reality into being. If reality is "imagination", and if you are you are, then you cannot stop "creating" in "any moment", or reality would just, crudely speaking, disappear. And, so, you're always creating what you call reality "in every moment", from your relative, time space perspective, and your feeling is telling you "how" you create in the now. You, somehow, have created the groundedness of being so deeply and strongly, that it is, for instance, almost close to impossible for you to defy gravity. You, then, are creating the "platform level" of being in the deep level of your mind, and that part of you you've defined as God, or Infinity. You, as the humanized experience, are seeking for the experience of oneness with God, a, in a sense, harmony with God in the form where it has become your actuality. Then, do you understand how, and why, the experience of "feelingness", of "intuitiveness", is important in every moment of your being, even when you're not, consciously, aware of it? That's true, also, that you cannot be consciously aware of "it" all the time, for "it", for you, in your, in a sense, modality of being has become "one", in a sense, with your experience of "being". That's, in that sense, is your experience of "relativity", in the experiential sense, with what you "identify" as the idea of that which is perfect, that is your perception of being by being "the you" that you are being. That's how, and why, even, if you think deeply, enough, about it, you are created as an evolving being in an experientiality of space and time, even if you are not space and time. Being is manifesting itself, in a sense, as the "process" of being itself where it also is the idea of "not being" itself, and the "idea", in a sense, is reality. And the discovering of the idea of the idea is also a part of the process of "intuitivity" that, in itself, is "intuitivity".

Time and space, in this opinion, are the experience of self reference that "builds" itself as here and now, and it, already, carries its own mode of being in the here and now.

And philosophy, in my opinion, has forgotten about that, that it is, as being, so one with that that it becomes "two", in a sense, with that. This, also, does not just include philosophy, but all the endeavors of the "humanizedness", and it made it, in a sense, "two" with itself, for it is "too" close to being. This, then, made being define "itself" as other to itself, for it is the intrinsic experience of being.

I think you're trying to say "maybe all is about love", and I think I'd agree with that, haha.

But when you say 1+1 does not equal 2, don't you imply that 1 does not equal 1, and doesn't that also imply that a is not equal to a?

What if we can even get around that one? ???

When I took this username, Vibroverse, I was thinking of reality, in a sense, in terms of new age thinking. Thinking of reality in terms of being vibration and frequency etc. And now I'm thinking like "what the fuck is vibration anyways?", and I'm thinking of "vibration" itself, whatever it is, as another form that is the "vibration" of an even deeper structure. I mean, I still find thinking in terms of vibrational frequencies etc to be useful from time to time, in some senses, but at the ontological level, calling reality vibrational does not, in a sense, seem to make sense. I mean, if I take the idea of every "thing", both physical and mental, being vibrational in the sense that things are the modes of consciousness, then it kinda makes more sense. And if I make this consciousness more of a dance of the subjective and objective levels of being, of idealism, in that sense, like, in a sense, what Hegel did, then it also makes sense to me to use that analogy of "things" being vibrational frequencies of being. Things, in my opinion, in these terms, are the modifications, or modalities, in a sense, of absolute consciousness, the one, that itself is in itself the emptiness, or the "nothing", in that sense, and being is being the being that it is as that process of being in this space and time "world". Things, in that sense, seems to me as the effort, the desire, in a sense, of returning to their original states of being by feeling, or intuiting, in the broadest sense of the word, themselves into the being that they are, where they, in a sense, are what they are. So, thinking of that process as, like, an analogy of a frequency trying to find its "core", in a sense, frequency seems to make sense to me, but then, I guess, it also is the attempt of describing the formless, that which is intuitive, in the form of a form, and perhaps, in a sense, all the disagreements keep going from there. So, if being is being that "be's" itself in the form of being a form, ad infinitum, for it is the discovery of the self, in that sense, then the form that it is is both meaningful and meaningless given the "beingness" that it is, and therefore, in my humble opinion, the experience of forming of the forming is "discovering" itself as philosophy. So, objects refer to objects that refer to objects become the structure of that which is from which it is seeking relief, from which it is seeking the self discovery of its being, and that becomes the mode of being that it is that, in a sense, is "feeding" itself by being what it is. I mean, the form, in that sense, is discovering its own "process" of being the form, and that point of the objective quality becomes the form that which is the form that, also, in that moment, is the "process", where being and becoming "becomes" that which it is. And then, consciousness becomes the consciousness of itself, and then it finds itself in itself as it is itself, but that happens without the awareness of consciousness that it is itself being itself, and that's the point where the idea of "socialization" comes in, and that's that which requires itself to be itself by not being itself. Then when it begins to discover that the concepts as itself has always been the mode of being itself that becomes the world that it is, as it also is the world that also is the becoming. Then it becomes the being of the being that discovers itself by, perhaps, also, creating itself. This, I guess, is how all ethics and knowledges and modes of being has been created, or produced, or become that which is what they have become. This, I guess, is the modality of being that it is that is being that which it is without being known by that which it is for it is that which "itself" is, in that sense. I mean, it is like it is so close to itself that it is even closer to itself than the idea of being close to itself that it is unknowable to it. It is so itself that it becomes the very "itselfness" of itself that is what it "be's", and therefore the discovery of "it", in the conceptual sense, becomes another "conceptual" experience that becomes it "becoming" itself, in that sense. I mean, if I turn back to the idea of the concept, that becomes a set of itself in itself, then the concept represents a certain idea, or impression, to the being that it becomes the "candidate", in a sense, of its "future" probability of being where it becomes the idea of being towards "the being". But then, for example, in this idea of idea, that I called vibration, becomes the beingness of being that seeks for its place of being where it becomes the representation of an idea that represents that which "it", in certain modalities of being, is, and it becomes the essence of the essence of the process of "world building". Then, as we talked about it in the conceptual example called vibration, it becomes the symbol of a perception that perceives itself to be that set of being where it is being where it, in itself, is being. That's the point that's interesting to me about the idea that we may call the process of "world building", for the substance of that process also is that process itself. The process of a concept becoming itself, in its all specific and broad senses, becomes the mystery of being itself by being itself that seeks for the demystification of itself in the modality of the "mystification" that it is, where it, then, is a "science", for it becomes the "merging" of that mode of "conceptuality".

Well, yes, a=a might be an imagination ultimately, consciousness ultimately, if we think of existence as consciousness, but what we need to accept and deal with, I guess, is it is a deeeeeeeeeeeeep level imagination.