ZzzleepingBear

To your first question, yes. Second question. No. No-self implies that you are as is. Self-image issues are conflicting beliefs that you hold the illusory self togheter with. A example of sel- image is: "I'm a good driver". This can't be true, you just know how to drive according to the public collective agreements on how one are expected to drive a car. "I'm a good driver" implies a self-image of a certain someone driving the car better than others. Totally self justified for no useful reason other than as an identity (self-image). Even a so called terrible driver could have the self-image of being a "good driver".

In this moment, you don't know if Santa Clause and his little helpers are preparing your christmas presents. Maybe they really are, who knows for sure? Are you seeing the overlapping issues here?

I respect that view. How ever, the reason I asked was because I'm curious if anyone actually do grasp any point with clarity as you suggest. And by grasping anything, I mean recalling something anyone found to be profound for themselves from any possible logical conclution. In my view, the opposite is the case as I listening to his interview. He speaks with high confidence, and don't shy away from elaborating on the questions.. Great. But his answears seems to muddle themselves with more complexity thrown ontop of what was already seemingly hard to follow. So personally, I could not even tell if anything he says is right or wrong in the end of the day. I'm sure he believes in his theory, and that others belive in him as a person, because it sure looks like he know what he is talking about atleast. Anyways that's my take on it all.

Would you like to share a example or two from his statements? What came through with such a clarity to you personally from anything he explained?

@Shaul You're welcome Shaul. And that possibility is good to contemplate on, if there is alot of inner dialog getting in the way of itself. Ok my water example was maybe a bit confusing. So yes, the brain/mind is geared to survival. And when the bodily needs are meet. We are getting into the identity/purpose that are directly linked with our bodily survival. It is my believe that our modern lifestyle and upbeat rythm of living, is as a consequence making it increasingly harder to maintain a identity for alot of people. It's like a cultural death process that are in a accelerating speed from the historical momentum behind it. So it's another kind of survival to attain to for us living in the first world countrys. That in itself may contain both the good and the bad for survival, but it's a on going process into the unknown imo. @Thought Art My point adressing the positive/negative thoughts is that they relate to eachother through a balance point. They can be A dual aspect of thinking when related to emotionaly. But the postive/negative emotional thinking doesn't represent thinking as a whole.

The problem with the flat earth theory is that the experiments always fall flat. And maybe that's why they believe in the flatness to begin with

Think about the absolute as the sea. And then think about the wave you want to catch because you like surfing let's say. The wave emerge from the sea. But sea doesn't emerge out of the wave. They are one, but simultaneously separate in a relative notion so to speak. When you catch a wave and ride it out. As it appeared on the surface of the sea, it also merge back in the sea without ever having left the sea. The wave never existed on it's own as something separate as a wave. It was the sea all along. And yet, you can paradoxically compare and choose what wave you like to surf as they come and go.

As much as I would like to say yes I does, beacuse lucid dreaming is fun and all. I don't think it increase one's chances for an awakening by much. And here is why I'm sceptical of that. As meta as lucid dreaming is, it merely shows you that the dream is not real as in being awake irl. So a lucid dream does only make you feel temporary free of your consequence framework that your mind operates from on daily basis. And that is probably where this sense of awe and freedom comes from in a lucid dream. But you stil continue to engage in the dream as you would even with out knowing that it was a dream, the only real difference is that you may take the dream less seriously so you can become much more playful while in it.

"Language games" that's a home run alright! Maybe you already agree with this, but I'd say that your red/green block example sounds more like a practical aspect of how language are ingrained in us as a tool to distinguish our being from objects etc. But when it comes to emotions and feelings. That is where the game begin so to speak. However, that emotional/feeling entanglement with language might just be an inevitable consequence of the learning itself, who is to say really. :-p

You're welcome! Yeah I had to look up the definition after reading your take on it, just to be sure myself. But as you said, context does play a big role here, and your definition could not make it any more clear here, once again well put! I'm not familiar with Wittgenstein, but I will definitely look into that "Beetles in a box". The thought of "do we mean the same thing here, or even close" That is with me quite often, so to that thought I am greatful. Since miscommunication isn't exactly unheard of, haha. Thanks once again for the recommendation, I will look into it. Seems like it could be some good stuff!

That is beautifully put i must say! Like swimming in murky waters.

You're welcome! About the conflating of the wooden table. Yes you got that right, it implies atleast the two things being mentioned. So having a discussion about what fundamentally makes a wooden table being a wooden table in the end of the day can from there on. Be turned into this endless arbitrary loop by stressing one of those point back and forth, by just one persons decisiveness from following along with one of those points as the crucial ground for what is most important in there. Yes, I share your precise view of Harris here. He is seemingly keen on discussing consciousness up to a certain point. And from there on, he switch to the brain and makes some claims about the brain having a key role or the main role of conciousness. He can maintain his doubt and mental position as long as pleases, merely by switching the discussion point between conciousness and the brain when he feel pressured. But he also makes weak point himself from doing so, and may even get to be percieved as this deep sceptical thinker by alot of viewers by not fully follow through in the main topic of consciousness as he embarked on. Hope that makes some more sense for you.

Alright, thank you for that. I always find it interesting, when how I frame someting in a certain way. That it can be identified into a category like this that you mentioned, because I usually never have a clue from what category-frame I speak from, unless maybe when it's something more basic like deterministic based, or other. Also, I might add to my take on information. That the end vision/goal as it is reached and understood. Determine whether information will be seen as just that. As information or nonsense:-)

Negative thoughts, is merely an opposite to positive thoughts. Both serves to find a middleground, or balance point. Drinking water is healthy for you, but if you drink too much of it at once, you end up poisoning yourself. And you are simultaneously dependant on drinking to survive. It all sounds like a contradiction until you take balance into perspective. In meditation, this "someone" is a thought in itself, that may seemingly appear as if this "someone" is producing thoughts. The point of watching, is to gain a increasing awareness of thoughts that you might identify with as yourself, as they arise in your mind with or without your own apparent doing.

This sentence alone stood out to me and makes so much sense now, as I think back on the debate between Harris and Spira. This is a perfect example of when someone like Harris wants or feel the need to deny the fundamental reality as conciousness in any discussion/debate. An egoic emergancy break. Conflating overlapping thoughts inorder to collapse an undenial seeing of what is.

Interesting question. Looking at the words itself strongly suggest that the word information. Is a description of knowledge put into a coherent formation. Like that of army soldiers in unity will togheter put themselves individually into one formation based on the comand given to them. Information> In-formation. In = knowledge. (In as input of ) Formation = A specific arangement into form So the word information would consist of an array of separate knowledge and inherent understanding put togheter into a unique form that can be individually recognized and agreed upon by reaching a common conclution/goal.

There is a 20 min long discussion between Sam Harris and Rupert Spira on youtube that I can recommend. I don't know much or anything about Sam harris really, other than that he is very popular and seem to oppose consciousness as the fundamental reality. But I have watched quite alot of Rupperts teachings through out the years. I found their discussion to be a quite interesting one, since it isn't really a hardheaded debate between the two either, despite their different positions. Oh, and btw that wasn't the full discussion I believe, I think it continue on some other platform. So I didn't watch the full thing, but I might do that Here it is for anyone interested

A classic!

Hahah good one! I call sus on OP.. He must be the imposter, he is the chosen one!

OP, take a look at this. It will be well worth your time I think.

That is actually a really good.. point:-)

You are the chosen one because every other position was already taken, and you where the best fit for the job of being you! Or are you surprised that you know yourself better than anyone else??

What did the Solipsist say to his fellow prison inmates on his first day in jail? Can all you imaginary NPC's shut it already! I try to get my afternoon nap in here, I've had a rough day okay!! ..? And then... He was awaken.

By stopping yourself right where you are, right now. Most people are familiar with the saying of: "If you want to become someone new or reach this/that goal, you have to keep moving forward." What is not often mentioned, is the speed of that forward movement. And you also have your personal direction to attend to, which is set out from your envisioned goal. With those details in mind.. As you reach your milestones and gaining experience, you also have a certain momentum behind you. And that also give you a certain taste for speed.. When you pass your inner speedlimit of joy, you start to miss out on the beauty around you as things tend to get blurry the faster you go. And here is where the sense of direction are at risk to be lost. Because the joyful journey do involve smelling the flowers, tasting the tea or coffee. But when you sit in that cosmic lamborghini roaring past the roses by the roadside in warp speed, and sweeping down that takeaway coffee in two gulps.. You eventually have to come back to the realization that the stilness of life is of no less value or importance than the excitment of speed.. Find your inner speed limit, put your foot off the gaspedal and stop at a beautiful rest stop inside of you.. Stop, and marvel at how far you come in your inner discoveries already. And even a short introspection will help you with the deepening and integration process of those inner discoveries that you already found out for yourself long ago. Stay present in the moment by slowing down, and you may even get a new found idea of in which direction you are going in from there. Where ever you find yourself, there you are. -Someone very wise I forgot the name of

God - Run my shit