Vibroverse

Yeah, i agree. And i think the greatest philosophical or spiritual insights can come to you only when you are honest with yourself, and aim only for the inner resonance with your true self. You know, i mean, the greatest mental understandings, so to speak, also come from your increased resonance with your true self, through self honesty, shadow work, meditativity, and shit like that.

Having a false notion of self, and something being called in a different way than how the common parlance uses that term, are two different things. And another question is, how do you know that there is only this, can't it be that this is just one part of all that is? And what does "you" mean, exactly, what are you exactly referring to with that term? And don't give me an automatic answer like "you need to wake up" etc, i am aware of all of that. What i'm saying is these things are not as obvious as you believe they are.

Yeah, gather as much information as you can from various resources and schools of thought, but don't get lost in them, find your own inner resonance, so to speak, mhm, good.

Yeah, and being honest to yourself and "working" on your shadows in the process is very very important, imho. You know, otherwise we are so good at getting lost in mental masturbations. At least i know that i am.

Yeah, sure. It is found in the stillness between thoughts, in that sense.

Yeah, one of the possible mental constructions. But, in some sense, we cannot get away from mental constructions.

Yeah, sure, relative is a thought, but it you think in that way, then absolute also is a thought, we can even say that there is nothing but thought, that reality is thought. I mean, from an idealist and nonduality perspective, we can say that this is thought thinking itself in the form of a multiplicity of thoughts.

Yeah, i see. And i think that they also have some grain of truth in what they believe, in their possible explanation of their experience. However, the thing is, the truth is beyond all of that, beyond all mental constructs, including solipsism and antisolipsism, for lack of a better term. Solipsism is just another perspective "this" can take, and what i'm saying is just another perspective "this" can take, but being so stuck in any perspective is just a trick, or tricky mode, of the mind, that's what people usually miss.

Yeah, i understand the sentiment. Resisting resistance, and then resisting that resistance, and then resisting that resistance, becomes its own black hole, so to speak.

Is what you guys mean by solipsism that "i, as mike, am the only being that exists, and you, as john, do not exist"? I think not, but you see, in most philosophical circles, this is what solipsism means to them. I mean, i believe that most of you mean "neither mike nor john exist, at the ultimate level, but only the awareness that is the source of both of them is that which is truly real". If you mean it in that way, or something like that, then no problem. But, if so, why do you feel like you need to take a word whose common usage means something else, and be stubborn, and say that, "no, it is what this means"? It is like saying "no, the real meaning of cat is not the animal, cat actually is a tree". Why do that, really?

Yeah, finding the balance point between the absolute and the relative is the true mastery.

Exactly.

@Princess Arabia Well, aren't you God? You tell us, why did you invent it?

Yeah, i think the words like feeling, intuition, surrendering, awareness, consciousness, logic, reason, etc, are all actually referring to the very same thing when we truly understand their true meanings, so to speak. Feelings of peace, surrendering and clarity of mind might be thought of the essence of all of that, and i think inner stillness and meditativity are the easiest shortcuts to it. Meditative shadow work and meditative journaling, or perhaps self talk, could also be good tools for me, but anyways, yeah.

I like his takes on the ideas of nondoership and shadow work kinda stuff.

Solipsism is meh.

Existence is music, a harmonic system of resonant tones, as a possible analogy.

When you think about it from a deeper level, i think we can say that map and territory are also distinctions in consciousness, that you cannot really say where the map ends and the territory begins, so to speak. I was thinking about how Al Farabi interprets the idea of Mohammad receiving revelation from the angel Jibril. Al Farabi basically says that prophets are ones with a great capacity of imagination, and for they don't, usually, know about abstract reasoning, they tend to interpret abstract universal ideas through imagination. It is like, Al Farabi thinks, Mohammad perceives the idea of the universal intellect, and connecting with the universal intellect, in the form of the angel Jibril coming to him and giving him revelation, kinda like the idea of Hermes, the messenger of Gods, in a way. But he also says that, as far as i understand, even though Jibril is like a representation of the universal intellect, still it has its own reality unto itself. So it is like Jibril is both a map and a territory, depending on your perspective, in a sense. Now, imagine that you are looking at a literal map of some territory, like you are looking at a map of California. You might say that from one perspective, California the physical place is the territory, and the image of California on the paper is a map. But, for instance, from a Platonic perspective, you might say that even California the physical place itself is a map to be read, so to speak, as some sort of a possible gateway to the idea. In that sense, the map of California is a map of a map. And that's why Plato was critical of art, for instance. He would say that the painting of a rose, for instance, is an imperfect imitation of the physical rose, and the physical rose is an imperfect imitation of the idea of a rose, of the abstract rose, so to speak. That's why he said that arts distance you even further from the real reality. And Schopenhauer says that Plato is wrong about that, for the painting of the rose, by its existence, contains the idea of the rose, the perfect rose, within itself, and that it can function as a gateway, so to speak, for grasping the ideal form. And Aristotle also thought similarly, and that's why, overtly speaking, Aristotle was protoscientific and Plato was, in a sense, antiscientific, even though this might be a subtler debate in its details. Anyways, in short, this distinction between map and territory, or theory and reality, is a pretty nuanced subject, kinda like the idea of the ship of Theseus, in a sense, where it is not pretty clear what the difference, in a sense, between that which is the ship of Theseus, and that which is not the ship of Theseus.

If you follow the guidance of your heart, then it wouldn't be a problem, i guess.

Well, i believe that it is possible to see from a view that transcends all maps, in a sense. I believe that there is an experientiality, so to speak, that is transcendent to all maps, including language. I believe that it exists, and turning back, more and more, to the inner stillness is how we do it, in my opinion. Simple awareness of where we are and acceptance of it through stillness is one of the best ways possible, in my opinion, in a sense. And that which is transcendent to all maps, that is you and me, in a sense, might be the source of all maps, and that through which we also can understand the nature of reality, including maps, also.

Yeah, we are the subjective lenses through which the one is looking at itself, in a sense.

@LastThursday a map basically is for helping us find our way, and try to see the bigger picture by assuming that we can get to its essence in a way that makes sense to us. and the experience of reality, in a sense, is like maps within maps within maps, and you might even say that it is maps all the way down. in a sense, that's what the popperian scientific method is. the purpose is to find a better map of reality, and to never have the assumption that you've transcended the map, because all you do is look for a map that explains reality better. when you think about it, even us talking about what a map is is done through another map called language right now. it is a map that is trying to understand what a map is, in a sense. the question is what exactly is language, and can we know what it is without referring to another use of language.

It is not that you should stop using your mind, but it is that you should find that which both includes and transcends the mind.

If you're ready, you can even listen to a barking dog and wake up. Otherwise it'll just annoy you. You know, it depends on who you are and where you are, and your proclivities, and so on.

Yes, and no, and yes, and no, and yes.