RMQualtrough

Right, so the subatomic particles which aren't directly perceived like UV, what term would you use to describe them? They aren't things when robbed of perception yet we find they exist.

Pretty sure it's like self-induced general anaesthesia. Even the objects of space and time disappear. When there's no observed there's no observing

IMO it is void as in literally nothing. And when we are conscious of something, we know total absolute nothingness by being it... As in, without things, nothing would never be known. What is something with literally no properties whatsoever? The void has no properties not even being like an infinite blackness. It's just nothing. It seems to me nothingness EQUALS the subject portion of awareness. It seems they are literally the same. It seems the existence of perception necessitates a subject to perceive these objects, but the subject is simply nothing at all. And that's what we are. To me the nothing appears the ground of existence: There literally could never be more than one "absolute nothing" could there? It would be an impossibility? Then if every human's "consciousness" subject is found to be literal nothing, then it MUST be the same by the sheer fact there can't be multiple separate nothings because it's just nothing. I'm not even sure it exists per sé because it might be that perceiving which springs from the void necessitates perceiver, and that portion is basically an illusion. Like the existence of perceiving necessarily created perceiver and perceived so itself can be. Without things the "subject" would not exist it'd just be void with no content. So I think we might be experiencing existent non-existence.

I personally like non-existence because I find consciousness to be nothing, and I think that's the source. I understand that when all distinctions break down nothing and something are one and the same. Existence always exists, but I think non-existence (total void nothingness) is packaged with it... The void acts as awareness, when there is something to be aware of. Which there always is. What does one call an existent nothingness? It's such a contradiction.

<3 I've found you clearer and more concise in your own personal videos where you make a video about a specific topic. E.g. your video on why there's something rather than nothing. A similar topic came up on interview, but I think in the personal videos you manage to get things across in a clearer manner. I think some other speakers have an advantage because they are very familiar with this type of interaction. E.g. Rupert Spira teaches audiences and takes many questions, Bernardo Kastrup has had to learn similar skills when earning his philosophy phd... I doubt the topic will arise again but a deeper explanation on the difference between human and metaphysical love would be good. It is automatic to assume emotion with that word. Also #1 thing I thought, is that it would be good to have more exercises and pointers for answers rather than saying people have to be more conscious. Even if they won't get it, the Advaita Vedanta style leading down self inquiry etc would be great I think. Look forward to your next video with Curt.

There's nothing before the start of the universe I think, on the grounds that the concept of before and after etc requires time. E.g. from your own point of view you have never not existed. You merely infer your non-existence through stories. But from your perspective you always existed. This is what I imagine all things which come into being are like. It never didn't exist because there's no time for there to be a "before".

I think he basically was thinking along the lines of "just because you didn't perceive any more than what you did, how do you know there isn't anything more?" Like how a blind person could know everything except color. The infinite nature of total void nothingness is indisputable since any limitation or boundary is no longer nothingness. If there is only nothing and the apparition of something what else could there be but the unity of those two? It's both nothingness and literal everythingness. How could anything be outside that? When he asked you to use the term all-encompassing I think he understood the idea at that point, but the word infinity was tripping him up.

The thing that I got most from the talk is the explanation of why language fails, since ALL words make distinctions, and at the Absolute there is no distinction between anything at all. I wonder if "Nothing+Everything" would work.

I enjoyed the explanation of what metaphysical love is. Leo sounds like he's in a really good place right now.

Great talk man. I'm not really certain "consciousness" is the best term because of the way most people think of the term. I think I tend to prefer terms like void or infinity. 99% of people see consciousness as being a "thing". Like there's actually some "thing" back there seeing everything, rather than realizing that when they look for consciousness they find there is literally nothing behind there, you are it, and it's nothing at all. It is much easier for example to explain form and formless (or nothing and something). Nothingness could never have any boundary or limit. It is outright impossible and easy to explain. So that term is one I greatly enjoy.

The phrase is impossible. You can't be more nothing than nothing. What we experience as consciousness is literally nothingness. Maybe more objects can group together and appear in that nothingness (you and your mind being one of these objects), but of course the nothingness never ever and could never change. It is exactly like people say, trying to see your eyeballs with your eyeballs. No matter how far you retreat you can never find anything back there. There is NOTHING there. When I see Vedantists say "Brahman has no properties" etc and that it can't be captured in any word, I am sure they mean the same thing as Buddhists, despite commonly using the consciousness moniker...

Man... Nothingness is so rad. It shouldn't exist and yet when you try to find consciousness you find that there is genuinely and literally nothing there at all. Yet we are it so could it be said to not exist in the truest sense? So fucking wild and freaky. I love it.

Probably Western medicine and then positive reinforcement feedback loops socially. Thoughts seem to just manifest and appear from the void. Our minds are an illusion appearing in the void. I always wonder then, how helpful such knowledge is... When you make posts like the OP post it is that illusory mind speaking, and it's that illusory mind that is wishing to change. Perhaps realization of no-self would be beneficial? Because you realize that the you of even 5 seconds ago is no longer present. "You" is just a bundle of experience in the ever-changing present moment, there's no fixed person there at all.

Ibogaine is used specifically for addiction.

Leo will give you a better answer, but in my experience it was "being" that was not a function of the mind. Being was known VIA the things appearing in mind. In other words I couldn't know it without the appearances in it. But BEING it was just something you are like the analogy of trying to see your eyes with your eyes. You can't get behind it because you are it. Understanding seems like knowing and then I would think it's dependent upon the mind because without the contents of mind, what you are would not be known. Like how you wouldn't know you had sight if nothing was seen. So the knowing or understanding that sight is happening is dependent upon there being seen objects.

Consciousness as fundamental is easy. But I found that there is literally nothing there. Like I couldn't see consciousness with consciousness. Just know/be it via the existence of things. And then it just didn't make sense anymore. Everything being mind is very easy. Everything being part of that nothing is very confusing in terms of what continues, separation, the nature of oneness, how nothing is literally something. It wasn't a hallucination etc the thing I am, there's nothing back there. I can't perceive that thing only perceive through it. I could understand that there was definitely nothing actually there which is an object at all...

But consciousness is like, not you? It is you but I mean, when you reduce mind back to void (which IS what we experience as consciousness), what continues that you will know of? It seems that what continues is as much you as I am you. From a first person perspective it's hard to figure out what it will be like. If the last moment of our life ends then a new moment begins with """our""" consciousness. It is very hard to convey because classical reincarnation I do not think is how it works.

Salvia is dramatically different from DMT. I've used both extensively. There is comparability but moreso in how the substances just rape you and rocket you away. Salvia is weird but more abstract, DMT is just WEIRD in all caps. I find DMT far more traumatic and frightening. DMT feels menacing to me. I think I'd rather hit Salvia extract than enter a hard DMT trip.

Well, I don't think it would be conscious alone, because it was like I could only know it through the objects which weren't it. Alone it would be nothing at all. So that is why it is confusing imagine how it works. The self-mind evaporates, the nothing is still there. But I won't know it... Yet it is what I am. So I will. But I won't... The only way I got it was when someone used an analogy where nothing is light and minds are prisms diffusing the light out. You can't go back in your fractured form. I get it that way. But I am not sure what it is experientially like. I understand there is no "my" consciousness in the true sense, rather I belong to it. But experientially from a first person perspective what continues (or second person?). This is where it gets hard to think... It is easy to understand consciousness (the nothingness) is everything that exists, but you see relatively in this form we don't know each other's experience. I get that the same nothing does know both of our experience. It's just weird because it's like, it's me but not me at the same time.

Might be. It's EXTREMELY bizarre. LSD, ketamine, Salvia, whatever, those things are weird but DMT is much much much stranger. There is probably an amount of any substance that a person just will not be able to handle. When I did a big amount it was...... Seriously not good....... But I realized from the trips entering my dreams that I'm disturbed by every single trip I have with it. It's too surreal and detached from usual reality.

It's the most salient thing in existence, it's what we call consciousness, but it's not anything at all. There is just simply nothing there. So when people use terms like awareness it is implying it could stand existent alone. I understood then that it was impossible because awareness isn't a thing, and only things can be perceived. It can't perceive itself because it isn't a thing. I was it and knew it through things. Without the things I would not know it. And then I did not understand the process of death anymore.

My brain is likely never ready. It feels like entering loopy land, my brain just doesn't like it. Now when I smell or taste it I immediately feel flashbacky.

Well it's not the best idea, since it is literally completely 100% impossible in infinity years for a materialist ontology to explain all of reality. You'd have to be able to do paradoxical things like see without seeing. The hard problem of consciousness and mind-body problem etc. isn't just hard, it's completely impossible. Only awareness (in actuality, void) first can entirely explain all of reality since it encompasses everything including the mechanistic material universe. It can explain reality entirely which materialism never will be able to.

My brain is traumatized by DMT. Are you sure some doors aren't better left unopened? That door will open when the body dies no matter what we do in life. It's not like we have any choice. I am interested to try 5 but still have occasional night terrors from n,n. Maybe it's better to just enjoy the play.

The easiest summation I know of, is that NO humans have consciousness, consciousness has humans. AKA the individual-mind-you belong to it and NOT vice versa.