Thanatos13

Again no it’s not. Also calling something a mental construct doesn’t make it any less real. It’s also not your agenda since you don’t get a say in it. The drive to survive is in all life and the creatures don’t get a say. That’s pretty objective. But you are a fool if you think humans can think objectively. Those who claim to are, IMO, kidding themselves. The desire to be objective dooms you from the start. The thing is that we have proof that it’s just a chemical. Your beliefs sound like idealism, which to me is more like a religion than philosophy. We didn’t create it, it happened and we found out the cause. You are mistaken about the core aspects of morality, it is often questioned. The debate on morality has continued on for years without any real headway. Morality is part social programming and part biology. He’s wrong about that. There is even a debate as to whether consciousness is real or not. The reason for justification is that faith is what religions do to get you. Sure it feels good, but it’s shaky ground. You need to ask yourself why any of this matters. Why question? What’s the point? Why does that matter? Why does truth matter? According to who? And again, why does it matter? How do you know what’s true? How do you know it isn’t a lie? I my opinion people just reach a point where they stop questioning. They chide others for not doing so but they inevitably just stop for some arbitrary reason. But you cannot escape morality, it’s hard wired into us (hence the murder but).

You don’t really expand your mind, it’s more like you cycle through things. If people can back up their claims then I will consider them, but even then they might not be right. I can understand a perspective and still think they are wrong. It’s called imagination. But what I do know is that you cannot be 100% about anything, no matter how hard you try. Certainty is a myth. That the best you can hope for is good enough.

There is no Absolute perspective. You speak of biology and surivival as though such things are entities with a goal (as in a mind). They aren’t. You also cannot say that biology isn’t part of this “absolute”. Humans have little control over it. Biology can be absolute and by extension survival. After all it’s not like life needs to exist, but it does so without regard to reason or logic. That sounds pretty absolute to me. even morality can be so, for it is ultimately rooted in survival and is visceral. The reasoning and justification is just window dressing. But to cap it off, I cannot trust the word of a creature that lives it’s life subjectively to speak of “absolute” or objectivity. By default our brains construct reality based on our senses. At best we can hope for approximate knowledge, which is similar to Pyrrho’s argument, albeit modified.

It is objective in the sense that it’s wires into the biology of living creatures, hence outside their control. In that sense it’s an objective value in that you don’t have a say in it. As a suicide victim how hard it is to overcome the survival drive. Ultimately though we are subjective creatures that live by subjective values. There isn’t a way around that.

I don’t think you are correct in that regard. I have met professors whom I have “schooled” despite their years of experience. Though you using a phrase like “expand consciousness” makes me doubt your words. You clearly have the wrong idea about professors, especially since you are one. You are also mistaken about debate as it’s only during that where I find ideas actually tested and questioned. Unfortunately people tend to do it wrong these days where it’s more about being right than looking at both points. You can’t really classify thinking by “stages” either especially since the guy who came up with “spiral dynamics” seems like he just arbitrarily assigned such qualities to the colors. It sounds like nonsense to me. The problem with “yellow” thinking is that humans have a knack for seeing patterns and connections where none exist. That fact that you are dividing thinking into such categories seems to show something (but not positively). The problem with “open-minded” discussions is that they never end up getting anywhere and people just leave believing what they want since to challenge what they say would be having a closed mind.

Well that’s and there’s the possibility that spirituality takes one further from the truth. Something to consider.

Ask someone who knows because I sure don’t. From what I know it’s part biology, part social, and maybe something else. The mistake peolle make is thinking mental construct=not real. That’s just not true. It’s also foolish to try to be objective since we are by default not objective beings and never will be. It’s like some idea that we reach for yet cannot be sure if we have. The irony is that reaching for objectivity is itself not objective. It’s a trick we play on ourselves to give them illusion of clarity. The best we can hope for is an approximation of reality. Personally it would be dishonest to assume more than that.

Technically objectively they are still more valuable then non food since biology is pretty objective. You don’t reallt have control over it. The hot and unhealthy is inaccurate as well for if you observe animals their biology dictates mates as well, again fairly objective. They have no say. Wel I guess it could be a bit of both, not really sure. Peolle need to stop using the word objective because humans aren’t objective creatures. We even experience reality very limitedly through our senses. Magicians play on the gaps and flaws of humans to appear to defy reality, which is why I heavily doubt claims about an absolute. Other animals can experience sensations we cannot. This just further casts doubt upon personal experience as a measure of truth.

This sounds like the dime a dozen replies you see on there internet. Eveeyone believes themselves to be awake, yet no one really is. They merely believe they are. The truth is you can never be sure of the true reality and that will stay with you no matter what. Reality and stability don’t always coincide. You aren’t awake, and no one is asleep. That’s just in your mind. A story you tell yourself. Ultimately it doesn’t really matter. Science a religion? Hahahaha. Religion peddles certainty, science does not. This isn’t a nightmare and no one is insane. Reality is far more complex than humans can make sense of so we turn to spirtuality thinking it has answers.

He can say that, doesn’t make it so. The Absolute is certainly a good story, but that’s about it. All that can be said is that it is a state of mind reached through certain acts and beliefs, but it cannot truly be said to be truth. Ah but the stories make it seem so. I’m beginning to see the wisdom in Pyrrho’s philosophy

I have to organize my thoughts. What I am getting at is that morality doesn’t have the solid foundation that we think. Ought and should basically boil down to “I say so”. It’s incorrect to say that morality, values, don’t exist because they are constructs of the mind. By that logic you can say the same about knowledge, wisdom, nonduality, etc.. What really matters is whether they are rooted in anything that says why one ought to do so. The argument can be made that inherently there is no morality or values, and there is strong support (but it could be said that it has not been demonstrated in every case). However this doesn’t matter, since we don’t live objective lives no matter how hard we try. We act based on values, regardless of what they are. But what I am saying is that when you question the reasons behind the values you find what shaky ground they stand on. Saying something is good doesn’t tell my why it is so, same for bad. It’s definitely complicated. So while there isn’t (yet) “objective” good and bad, there is subjective and that’s all that really matters (or doesn’t depending on your stance). The same for values. The value of “self actualization” is the same thing. It’s not inherently better than anything else (and I’m not going to argue about it’s truth claims here).

Arguing positions is the only way we really get anywhere. If you reach a stalemate then that says more about truth than debate. The whole point of knowledge is to debate the professor, since the only difference between you and him is a few letters (and even that does not make him right). If it's not a debate it means that one would have to back up their claims, which you don't seem to do. You have not really said anything that other scholars have not already. Morality being part of the mind is not news, that's pretty much sociology, philosophy and psychology. They amount to little more than because I say so. however "mental construct" is not the same thing as not real. I am willing to explore perspectives provided people can back them up. But again, morality comes down to "because I say so". Same thing with meaning. You could say that the experience of psychedelics is just a mental construct since we assign meaning to the experience. Of course then you get to the "so what" factor of it being a mental construct. That doesn't take research or inner work, it's basically beginner philosophy. Of course there is the bias that we assume contemplation leads to truth but that's another matter. Your claims seem to be based on faith since you don't really prove a point but assume it to be true, but don't provide the basis for it. Debate is how people get closer to truth, where claims and ideas are tested. Those who abstain seem more interested in their world than truth. Yet even then it isn't a guarantee that the end result is truth. Even the ones who started nondualism were open to debate for if their ideas could not survive tests then it was dogma, mere belief. Doesn't mean I agree with them.

@Thanatos13 That IS what you were talking about, you're just in denial about it. Which is what I was pointing out to you. But you keep clinging to morality as truth without being open to other possibilities. So they conversation is useless. You hold morality as an unquestionable dogma. That is the issue here. Love is a facet of Absolute Being. It's not a moral issue but an existential one. You're conflating love and morality. Love and morality might as well be since love is a value. However love is "two-ness" as I have heard. There is no love in oneness. Love is merely a construct of the human mind, it does not exist outside it. More to the point it is a chemical in the brain. But the short answer is that love is not "absolute being" this is a mistake. But it keeps finding it's way into such matters since people don't want to discard it. Love is part of the dream, and it seems like you are still dreaming.

It actually isn't but you are making it out to be to seem like you answered the question, when you have not. I say that without should or ought to then you would not really do anything since you would not value one thing or another. Even you do so, though you might not see it. I am not saying morality is truth since it amounts to little more than "because I say so". That being said, getting rid of should or ought means one would not do anything. Morality is a bit more than right and wrong, it's also about values (which aren't really right). But if all you do is give vague "answers" to questions then it makes me wonder why people see truth in what you say. It seems to me that it just appears like wisdom if you don't question it. The reality is the we act according to a system of values, and that is morality. That is when the should and ought come in. We live because it is a value, even though at the base the is no real reason why we ought to. The same goes for truth, love, etc. TO discard "morality" would be to discard values, which would result in paralysis. Similar to the arguments against Pyrrho. Or I can summarize it as you have not answered the question, you merely assume your position correct without backing it up.

Technically there is morality in a video game, that doesn't mean life is one. But nonduality is not nihilism though, for nondual has to assign meaning. Without meaning your videos don't have knowledge or wisdom (still don't actually, full of holes). Because there is no expanding the self and there is no self actualization. These are mere phantoms made by humans because we don't like feeling small so we craft these stories. Nonduality has to be the biggest one yet. I am not self actualizing myself because it's just reaching for what one believes that to be. We are relative creatures and the best we can hope for is agreeing on reality, and even that does not pan out. Despite what nondualists claim, they use a framework and concepts (even if they aren't words) to interpret experience. Otherwise you would have "noise" that leads you nowhere. However when they talk about it they act like they know, but to be honest one cannot be sure. Any magician will tell you personal experience isn't a good measure of truth. Any claim about seeing the Absolute is, imo, a lie.

That's not enlightenment, that just the result of a set of processes. Not to mention that you are entirely incorrect about what it is. As for the OP, it's called solipsism and it's been done before. BUt you have no proof they are NPCs.

No, that's not what I am getting at at all. It's fine if you don't know since you really didn't address much in the video. You also don't say anything in your reply, contrary to most that isn't "crazy wisdom" it's dodging the question. "surrendering morality" is being ammoral, so no you would not be moral. You also contradict the "Should" aspect of the video by advising against murder. You haven't surrendered morality if you are talking about love (which does not exist) and suffering.

Wrong, wrong on all of that.

They call that moral nihilism. Of course that is still a guess since I cannot for certain say that absolutely nothing is wrong.

One cannot speak to what is absolute when all we know is relative. At best what we have is a guess. It would be honest (to me) to say that objectively nothing has value, but that is a guess too. That being said, there isn't anything wrong with demonizing people for being "ugly".

Sorry to say but there isn't happiness to be found in nihilism. It's not really liberating so much as it is just realizing that there is no point to anything you do. That quickly robs you of any reason for doing

Said object.

If only you "know" then how can you be sure it is truth? Again we end up with a waste of time since you can never truly "know" you just tell yourself that you do based on X, y,z.

You could just say you don't know. I don't really believe in nonduality. To me it's just another grab by humans in an attempt to be infinite. But reality is not evident it is assumed. You are not infinite, that is merely a guess. You are not reality, it would be accurate to say you are a brain. Things happen in and out of your awareness, they do all the time. Thing is you can't really make claims about reality from personal experience since you just make up a story to make sense of what you feel. Feeling nondual doesn't make you so. It's just a sense or feeling. There is something to be said about how it goes away when you stop believing in it. Nonduality probably isn't truth, it's just the result of a set of actions. I know because I turn it on and off. I thought my way to it, even though people say you can't. But personally I think it's a waste of time. There better things to me that it. Especially since you never really know if you are there or if it is the truth and not merely what we assume to be the truth. We assume stripping things away gets you truth, but what if it doesn't? Even the experience of others doesn't really tell us anything since 1. they can't describe it and 2. we cannot measure it. You can say you "get it" but you cannot be sure. Also to burst your "now" bubble, we are never in the now. We are always a little bit behind it. Technically we are continually a little in the past. Being is not truth, that is just an assumption. What is true is that you are a brain and the states of mind you speak of can be influenced by probing it.

Again I keep saying that growth and development are a myth.