Mikesinfinity

@OldManCorcoran I think I understand the distinction you make between unified and singular. In a sense to say it’s unified is to already have carved it up in distinctions and without doing so we couldn’t say it’s ”unified” but instead ”singular”. Just as it wouldn't make sense calling a singular white field unified because what is it that’s unified? So we could say it’s just one singular ”white” field and when that ”whiteness” takes on different distinctions(shapes/colors) and then by just seeing the distinctions it takes it’s imagining there must be more than one field? And if it would dissolve back into pure whiteness it would realize it’s the only field? So this field I’m experiencing now in actuality, is the only field but that doesn’t preclude ”other perspectives” as they are just like this ”perspective” only this singular white field taking on distinctions?

So absolutely everything outside my current experience, including other perspectives, right now is only something I’m imagining? And then I’m imagining that I’m not imagining it? Like if I ask myself; ”if I stop imagine there is anything at all outside my current experience, would it still exist something outside my current experience?” And if I say ”yes” to that, THAT is also my imagination? And that’s in a sense how I’m making my imagination become reality? So the act of imagining it is the act of creating it?

I can see that time and change isn’t necessarily the same thing because I have experienced the inability to form thoughts with 5 meo so time disappeared in some sense but stuff was still changing. However, it’s not really clear to me right now and I want to ask about one of the primary objections that come up for me while investigating this. I will give you an example. So I can think of/remember grocery shopping yesterday and I’m aware it’s something I’m imagining now. If I stop imagining it, it would be as if it never happened. Then there comes another thought that says ”yes, it would be as if it never happened, but nevertheless it still happened even if I wouldn’t imagine/remember it”. I can see that that is also a thought I’m imagining that’s backing up the previous thought, but here is my dilemma with this whole thing; The problems I have with this is the difference in imagination/solidity. This computer I’m typing on is imaginary but it’s not on the same level as a thought. I could close my eyes and have a thought about the computer and then I can open my eyes and there is the computer I’m actually typing on. I could seize thinking about my computer but the appearance of the computer I’m typing on doesn’t disappear. Maybe I wouldn’t label it as ”a computer” anymore but the shapes and colors wouldn’t disappear. When I’m having a thought about grocery shopping yesterday it’s right now only on the thought level. If I stop thinking about that then there is no grocery shopping present right now. So the second thought that comes in and says that ”it still happened even if I don’t imagine it” is referencing something that feels deeper than just a thought, in the same way as this computer I’m typing on feels deeper than if I would close my eyes and just imagine it. So ”the evidence” that the second thought is using for my grocery shopping actually happening yesterday and not only being something that I’m imagining right now is that the first thought seems to connect to something that feels more real than just a thought in the same way as my computer feels more real than just a thought. It’s like I’m imbuing the thought of grocery shopping yesterday with the same sense of realness as the computer om typing on have right now. If I would right now stop imagining my grocery shopping from yesterday, did it actually happen? If it didn’t actually happen, that means it is only a thought I’m imagining right now. Is then my imbuing it with a deeper sense of realness somehow a trick? Am I constructing it somehow with this difference making? If it’s not only a thought but more real than just a thought like my computer right now, but is not ”back there” but is somehow ”now”, how come it’s not experienced now in the same way as this computer I’m typing on? Is experiencing ”things” an illusion? If I would seize experiencing things and only experience or become ”nothing”, would there be no time? As ”time” in some way equals imagination of ”objects”? In deep sleep it’s like there is no time and there is nothing to remember. It’s almost like it didn’t happen and even though I can’t remember it it’s like I somehow know it since I’m talking about it. Pointers to help me understand much appreciated.

Thanks for the heads up. Guess I'll go back to blasting 5 meo instead

Thank you for your response @Osaid Yes, I’m aware of that difference. I get confused when I get short answers that says ”you’re imagining that”, because I have experienced the insight on psychs that even my computer in front of me on some level also is imagination even though a deeper form than my human imagination so when I get those kind of answers without a distinction being made there it becomes blurry. Is my current experience actually not in time and the backstory makes it seem like it’s in time? Is direct experience or qualia ”out of time”? So in a sense the apple has no beginning and nothing has? For it to have a beginning I must imagine it right now and not be conscious that that’s what I’m doing? My confusion is that my human imagination that gives that backstory to the apple seems to connect to a direct experience of being in the grocery store just like I have the direct experience right now of typing on the computer. Is the backstory of me being in the grocery store only on the level of human imagination exactly right now? If it's not merely that but connect to qualia like my computer right now, where did it go?

@Leo Gura When you say not necessarily imagined at the level of thought, do you mean it’s imagination at the same level as my computer but that my placing it in a past is a false notion? If that’s the case then I get back to the problem of it not being experienced on the level of my computer right now. So I am somehow experiencing it now? But memory is some kind of fooling technique to make it feel like as if it’s in a sequence? Is direct experience and imagination different? Because when you tell me I’m imagining stuff it seems like we have reality/direct experience on the one hand and then my imaginations on the other, like we have one thing that’s true and another which is false. And I’m trying to distinguish between them but then you also say reality IS imagination. It sounds like I have to become conscious that I’m fooling myself to get to reality but then fooling myself itself is reality. It's like I don't know where to go from there.. Okay, so no things, no time. So we need things to have time but then it’s also possible with things and no time? Are things and time bound together or are they not? I experience my computer now but I can close my eyes and it has now disappeared and my experience of the computer has ended. How can I have an eternal experience with things if things always disappear? It sounds like an eternal experience would either have to be in the absence of things or be things not disappearing, which you say it’s not as that would be ”everlasting”. Is my knowing of their disappearance connected to this? If I move my hand outside the bubble so it disappears but don’t conjure up a memory of my hand I couldn’t say it has disappeared since I don’t have a memory of it’s existence in the first place. I mean in one sense when I talk about deep sleep I hold it as something in the past and not now but also when I try to actually think of it right now I come up blank. Is this ”blankness” that I’m referring to as ”deep sleep” also just my imagination? I’m not sure what’s happening there. It’s like I repeatedly run into this blank thing when I’m trying to understand some of these things.

@Yimpa I am aware that a lot could be bullshit. That was why I wrote it out very clearly where I was in my line of thinking, to have people comment on it and give feedback. Why I wrote these "disclaimers" is because I picked up a lot of the jargong here where people instead of having a supporting attitude instead go after each other in some sort of competitive way and I didn't want this thread to turn out that way because I'm genuinely trying to understand. You're actually an example right now of exactly why I wrote those things. You're telling me I'm dropping a lot of bullshit and I said that I'm willing to put anything I wrote into question, but that if you find errors then you yourself must not be in that trap and in that case be able to give me that input so that I can see myself that it is bullshit, if it is. Of course like everybody here there are things I think are true and others that I don't and if I didn't take any position to begin with I couldn't even formulate what I wrote but that doesn't mean that I'm not willing to change my position. Anyway, I didn't come here for arguing a position but for feedback so point out what you think is bullshit and I will consider what you say.

@Water by the River I appreciate that. I feel like it’s all been unraveling pretty fast and it’s been screwing with how I’m relating to things. I’ve always felt that there is something off with just saying ”you’re not it” instead of saying ”not only it”. There's a lot of talking about ego in spiritual circles and it feels like in many cases it becomes an unhealthy fixation and the desire ”to get out of it” can become dissociative. I also got some trauma baggage that’s been suppressed before but that have come up, confusing things for me. I will definitely check out Ken Wilbers model about Differentiation and Integration vs. Disassociation. Thank you for that. I do feel that when I experience the most Love it’s like something has taken over me and act with an intelligence that I otherwise don’t have access to. It’s like it just knows what to do better than I could ever know. I work partly as a jazz musician and sometimes when the energy in the room reaches a certain level I can get into a complete flow state where there is no sense of doership and I can get totally surprised of what comes out. Like it’s completely spontaneous, new and unrehearsed and I’m baffled to where the hell that came from. When people come up to me after because they felt it too it’s like ”yeah, I’m as impressed as you”. Yeah, that’s what’s been my aim with psychedelics and 5 meo, to reach states that I couldn’t reach sober but then help that inform my understanding in my sober state. I can get into some deeper meditative states where things first start to move around and then begins to dissolve into light but it doesn’t compare to a more powerful trip. I have noticed how my understanding in my sober state makes my trips deeper so I can see that merry-go-round effect. To be continued!

@Leo Gura So how am I misinterpreting Absolute Truth for being a perspective? Is the imagination of ”another perspective” and creating a boundary what seems to make Truth into a perspective? Yeah, but when you say I’m not gonna get specific omniscience but it’s possible to achieve general omniscience that was what I was wondering about and trying to distinguish in that sand-example. Like if I had a castle made out of sand I could either look at it as ”a castle” or I could look at it as just what it actually is, sand. If I look at it as ”a castle” there are also an infinite number of other shapes the sand could possibly take form as that I’m not aware of and therefore my consciousness feels limited. Like ”there is a lot I could be aware of but that I’m not aware of right now”. But if I just see the sand it doesn’t matter which shape it takes, it can take an infinite number of shapes but regardless I know that it’s all just one thing. That it’s even making the distinction out of the sand as ”a castle” that then creates the idea of ”other shapes” that I’m not aware of. If I somehow would be ”blind” to the shape of a castle then the dilemma of not being aware of ”other” shapes wouldn’t even occur to me. And that wanting to get specific omniscience is like right now viewing the sand as ”a castle” and then wanting to also have access to all other possible forms. But the error in a certain sense is making the distinction in the first place. I think one of the main points of confusion is about this distinction between general and specific omniscience and that the first objection that often comes up when you talk about reaching total omniscience is the expectation that it would mean that all relative stuff would be known. It sounds like there is a distinction between being aware of ”everything” and being aware of what everything ”is”. To be aware of everything would be the same as being aware of all possible sand shapes but being aware of what everything is would be that you know it’s all just sand no matter what. I’m not saying I know that this is the case, I’m trying to make sense of it.

Thanks for all your answers, much appreciated! @Water by the River Crazy, I discovered that book by Marc Leavitt recently and started reading it but haven’t finished it yet. I was struck by the image because even if I don’t take that to literally be the case that was the best way I could visualize it to try to understand it on a mind-level. I don’t know how to use the quote function so I’ll just do like this. You write; ”Then: When you are fully empty and nondual, perceptions perceiving themselves, at some point you will directly have the realization and understanding that the same Consiousness that you are is in the "other", having arisings of the separate self-feelings and -thoughts, being believed and not seen through, just in the same way it was with you for a long time. Then, these dry perspectives explained above become a lived and felt reality.” I do have that strange feeling of all the objects just being there, somehow self-aware and existing without being perceived. It all feels empty and very loosey goosey. When I just sit and stare at the wall it starts to float around. I feel like it’s become a living reality in some ways but there is also conditioning that is pulling me back and how I experience things now in relation to that conditioning I’ve definitely felt and still feel to some extent that I’ve completely lost my mind and gone insane because it’s so far out compared to what I thought reality was 3-4 years ago. I do admit that I’m to a certain extent trying to figure it out by thinking and reason but I’ve also experiences some unreasonable things in my trips so I know it has limits. I have had some breakthroughs but it’s not all clear so I’m weary of thinking ”I got it” and I can still feel there is this sense of wanting to ”grasp”. But I hope this can open me up more and help me go beyond that. I listened to the video with Francis and it touches some parts of the dilemma I’m confused about, but I’m gonna have to re-listen a couple of times. Thank you for your inquiry, I will contemplate on it. @Leo Gura I’m not completely clear on how you make a distinction between ”perspectives” that you say is imaginary and ”experience” that you say nothing is outside of. I could personally have switched those terms in my example and called them 1st person experiences instead. However, I’m probably deceiving myself about what experience actually is at some level. I can see that when I’m talking about perspectives I’m imagining some kind of boundary or that I’m holding it as something and that a boundary is what creates two things. I read something you wrote to someone else where you made a distinction between general omniscience and specific omniscience. You’ve used this example yourself and I’m sure I’m probably simplifying it but is it something like this?; We can have sand and we can have shapes made out of that sand. As long as I’m viewing it as shapes while being ignorant of it’s reality, which is just sand, I seem to not be aware of everything? But if I would become completely conscious that the only thing I’m always aware of is just sand and that’s all there is I would in a sense become conscious of everything? And that it’s only when I carve it up into shapes that I can create distinctions and imagine different perspectives? I had a moment in one of the 5 meo trips where a thought repeatedly came to me which said ”being is prior to knowing” and it felt like no one knows anything. Like the whole of reality just is without anyone knowing of it’s existence. Sometimes I get a small glimpse on where this might be leading and that it will be a complete end of my humanity and it scares the hell out of me but there is also a side of me that just wants the truth. @Hojo I didn’t actually label the void as inside my head but that it sits where I previously imagined I had a head. I don’t believe there is a head ”here”. I feel headless and faceless and don’t really have the sense of the world being outside. I feels more like I have no idea where I am that the whole world is like a bubble floating in that not-knowingness. @MisterNobody First I just wanna make clear I didn’t write it to have anything validated per se. I wrote because this is where I’m currently at in my line of thinking and I feel stuck and wanted to explain where I’m currently at to get some pointers where to go next. I totally understand that just like in universities and in most institutions in society there are hierarchies of authority and that there are similar things happening within spiritual communities as well, but I have seen enough authority figures say things that is just plain wrong when examined in my direct experience so I don’t conflate authority with truth. I’m actually extremely anti-authority and have been my whole life and most of the time never buy what anyone says regardless of how that person is being viewed by others. I mean, someone like Neil Degrasse Tyson has a lot of authority but I don’t buy any of his materialism. I view authority mostly as a survival game. To some extent I believe you have to have that anti-authoritarian side to you to really go far in this work and to even be able to question and give up what pretty much everyone around you believes and be willing to look crazy to them if you would speak truthfully from your experience. At the same time, I can’t test every statement ever made and have to prioritize. Of course I admit I will carefully listen when Leo says something but it’s not out of blind belief or being a ”fan”, but because I have examined my experience against his insights and have discovered a lot to be true even though there is still a lot I don’t understand. So he has a track record there of saying things that turned out to be true for me. Regarding the actual topic. You write; ”what difference does it make if both 1st person perspective worlds are only internally generated by each person? If you kill me, I will die both in your internally generated reality and in mine.” It sounds like you’re saying things that I don’t actually say. In the examples I just explained how I don’t think the 1st person perspectives are being generated or owned by the person/body. I don’t hold my body, eyes or brain responsible for generating anything that’s happening right now. I don’t believe this perspective to be ”mine”. You also write; ”So, back to my main point of this paragraph, just because you imagined infinity to be ALL possible 1st person conscious experiences in THIS universe, it doesnt mean it has to be like this. Infinity doesnt need to be manifested like that, or to be experienced from 1st person perspective in a particular universe. ” I have no experience of this 1st person perspective being located in a universe, it’s the other way around as far as I can tell in my direct experience where this 1st person perspective have no location and the universe is a dream. I get that I’m imagining other perspectives/dreams but I’m not imagining them being located at different positions inside a universe. As this 1st person perspective doesn’t have a position I don’t view it as other 1st person perspectives being located at a different position. When I’m ”walking” I feel stationary while the objects flows. I do imagine that there is another perspective but that it’s also being hold in the Godhead/headlessness. As far as how things manifest, I have experienced weird things on normal dmt so I know the possibilities of imagination and that it’s not limited to only take form as something relatable from a human perspective. Lastly; ”He was asking if this ONE is living through others' pov as well (seeing, hearing, feeling etc) or others just act in accordance to the ONE intelligence but they are dead on the inside (no life inside, no conscious experience, no pov)” I’m not asking that. I already don’t think there is anything ”internal” and said that I don’t think of bodies being different than for example a rock. We usually don’t do grounding with objects like rocks, i.e. locates objects inside of an object and I don’t do that with bodies either so in that sense I already view them as ”dead”, but I don’t think that means the absence of another perspective as I don’t locate it inside a body.