Anton Rogachevski

The kind of news all the "human rights organizations" won't mention and probably won't see because it's not even covered by any left wing media: https://www.skynews.com.au/opinion/chris-kenny/retaliation-has-begun-antihamas-protest-leader-tortured-and-executed-by-hamas/video/ce38c0234fe29204b14d65f384b58aa2

Thank you It's very old, I haven't written anything there for a while

If you don't see that everything is absolutely mystical you are still under the illusion of "knowing". Nothing can be known.

It appears timeless. There can't be anything infinite in actual reality, because an infinite object or anything infinite is impossible under the currently known natural laws as far as we know.

"Me"? There's no such thing. Also "reality", this word doesn't mean anything or point anywhere in my experience. It's a nonsensical word, the same as ablubadub.

Part of it's nature is that it appears infinite. The fact that it appears that way doesn't actually mean it is infinite. It's simply how experience is constructed - you can't actually perceive and ending or a beginning but only imagine them. There's no dreamer, just the infinite dream of God. It's not obvious, it seems obvious because the evil demon has fooled you into feeling self assured like that. Nothing is obvious, and if anything seems that way to you, remember you are being fooled again.

@Breakingthewall Sounds profound, but I'm afraid we're going in circles and returning to the same basic assumption that your direct experience of the simulation of your ape mind is somehow indicative of the ontology of reality, and can explain it and understand it. Why not admit that you are simply studying your personal phenomenon, and it has no relation at all to actual reality. It's a dream within a dream. Phenomenology is cool, I love it, that's why I'm here, but why ruin it's name with extraordinarily optimistic claims of understanding actual reality? There are appearance: colors, shapes, sounds, feelings, etc Where within these phenomenon can you see "reality"? It's light on a screen, and it can turn off in any instant. I can't see any reality, nor does that word mean anything to me. Phenomenologically speaking nothing is real nor is it imaginary, it simply appears.

@Breakingthewall How do you know that it's an "unlimited framework" what even is that? Where is it? What is "reality"? Where is it? How do you know there are infinite possible realities? To know even one would be an amazing achievement, no one knows or can know what is "reality" it's absolutely mystical. How is that known? I highly doubt that, and how can anyone deduce such a fantastical story?

@Breakingthewall No doubt it sounds profound, but it's an extrapolation of the nature of mind, your personal subjective mind onto reality, with which you don't actually have contact with, except through a limited ape perception and some assumptions. Reality is not affected by perception of objects, it has no objects, it has no relativity in the same way ideas are related to one another like "good and bad". Reality is very much limited by natural laws.

There's much thought and care put into steel manning that counter argument. I update it by the hour as more insight is gained, so please do revisit and read the edited and polished version with more analogies and detail. I believe that in order for the next video of the proof to be as effective and powerful, you may need it to answer this argument here too. @Leo Gura @Yimpa @Davino

@Yimpa I guess the ego is afraid of dissolution and is holding on to "sanity" to keep intact. What worries me is all the thinking that when you get it you can suddenly "understand all of metaphysics" that sounds delusional and over optimistic. In that sense it is a loss of sanity. You can absolutely know yourself since you are it, but yourself is not all there is in a probable sense. It's seems that "enlightenment" is a dive into solipsistic insanity that closes you off from the rest of the world.

@Davino Yep that's all absolutely true phenomenologically, but is out of touch with what is probable. These constructs are what sanity is, and at the end of the day we do have to function as "humans" in a "human society". Is it still easy to function normally when it's all seen through?

I can agree that what Leo is depicting is "The Basic Epistemic Ground" (what basically can be known to a mind) - It's in fact a phenomenological study of the solipsistic nature of experience and a recognition that all there is to an experiencer from his perspective is what's within the mind. Yes the mind is only aware of itself, that's by design - that is the veil of perception fully seen! I would say that it's correct to call enlightenment "insanity", because it's actually a complete loss of touch with the objective world. Since our touch with it is only belief based, it's necessary to see through it in order to get in touch with the fundamental truth of an enclosed self consciousness. Sanity is when you still assume there is an objective world outside of awareness. Is sanity worth losing for the sake of experiencing this phenomenological truth? Why would one want that? I think it's more epistemically humble to admit that it's a phenomenological study of phenomenological truths, and not an ontological study of reality. To even assume that a human brain can understand and explain reality itself by simple introspection is ludicrous. It's a hidden metaphysical assumption, and I'm not willing to grant it. I know that if I Do follow the practice I will also lose touch with reality and start assuming that I know all of reality, but it doesn't sound very safe or wise actually. The most you can say about it is that's it's a cool hack of the brain, and that it feels cool(and absolutely horrific at times), that I'll grant. It seems that "enlightenment work" is letting Descartes' Evil Demon deceive you fully until you stop believing that anything concrete is even possible. When you say everything is hallucination, an infinite hallucination - The demon has won! The evil demon can by definition create things that don't exist or make sense, or create a feeling of knowing the "truth" since he's an all powerful demon. He can make you believe you are God and that you know everything, and it will feel that way, but that doesn't make it necessarily true. The fact that illusion exists and is aware of itself doesn't affect the world outside, only the one trapped in the illusion. If you start believing in illusion without any doubt just because you are aware of it and there is nothing else but it, you are by definition delusional, because you are like the prisoner in Plato's cave that says that "The shadows on the walls are all that exists." Not only that, but you go a step further into delusion and say now that you've understood everything outside the cave, all there is to know, just because you've seen the shadows on the walls fully. That's a scary notion at that. God is also everything outside the cave, that which you can't know, and will never know by definition - You are a baboon trying understand special relativity, it's impossible - it's too complex by definition for a limited brain that's built for survival in the jungle. Perception is not existence, it's an appearance. You will say that it exists as an appearance, ok, but still it's a limited and non important sort of existence - like the idea of a unicorn. It is very important for the experiencer, because that's all he has, and will ever have (The veil of perception), but still it doesn't affect physical reality nor does it explain it, nor can it debunk it from the inside of the cave. How good do you think my argument is? What do I miss? Does it make sense to you? Would enlightenment make me shut up about it? How well can you function post enlightenment? What's more sane: believing in the "objective" or deconstructing it completely? @Leo Gura

You can say what you want, but they made the deal happen, and not the Biden administration that could only pay lip service and talk about how horrible and wrong the conflict was. Biden had 400 days, and Trump did it on day 0. What can you say that about that? I'm not by any means a Trump supporter, and I was shocked that he got elected even after what happened after the previous elections which was just embarrassing, but the effectiveness of making the deal is an objective fact. Which btw is a terrible deal for Israel, and a huge mistake from a security perspective. Hamas promised multiple times to repeat 7.10 as many times as they can.

When an ex-hamas man debates for Israel better than Israel. Counter his points, if you are such pro debaters. The saddest part of it all is that the hope for peace between Israel and Palestine diminished greatly because of 7.10 and the aftermath, but if you only hope for peace when it's easy, you are not really for peace. I guess peace can be very challenging sometimes. It came to the unfortunate point where if you say peace, you are immediately judged for being too left wing. Sad very sad. But I didn't lose hope, and I hope you didn't either.