How Is It Possible To Be Wrong If Reality Is Relative?

[zurew]

16 hours ago, r0ckyreed said:

By raising your consciousness.

And then after you raised your conciousness you can ask the exact same question "How do you know that your consciousness is high enough so that you can't be mistaken?"

Don't you realize that this is a recursive problem, that comes from one of your pressuposition that 'there is no highest level'? Raising your consciousness further won't solve this epistemic problem.

The honest answer here would be -  given the assumption that there is no highest level - you never know and there is always room for you to be wrong later.

16 hours ago, r0ckyreed said:

Your getting lost in this "levels of consciousness" paradigm.

I don't know how im getting lost anywhere, when Im just making an internal critique (going inside the bubble of your paradigm and then laying down what kind of epistemic challenges and problems come from given paradigm)

16 hours ago, r0ckyreed said:

It cannot be doubted. The fact that you are reading these words and are able to type cannot be doubted. That is like saying that your hand doesn't exist when you are typing right now. You cannot doubt that experience is happening right now.

Of course it can be, you just take it to be true completely for granted out of necessity, because you cannot not rely on your introspection (but again that is just a skill issue).  But regardless, again you just put an = sign between your inability to question and between absolute truth for some random reason,and you build everything on the assumption that "If I can't question X, then X must be absolutely true"

This is another thing that most of you either take for granted or justify it in a circular way - How do you know that you have the ability to recognize an Absolute truth? ( a truth that is stance independently true, regardless what anyone thinks of feels about it) 

Also, how do you know that you can have epistemic access to Absolute truth?

16 hours ago, r0ckyreed said:

Haven't you noticed that reality itself is circular? How does God exist? God invented itself.

No, what Ive noticed is that a lot of people use their own epistemic limitations and project them onto the world and then pretend that the "truths" that their limited epistemology produces is absolutely true. To me, that statement sounds like a coping mechanism to avoid admitting the limitations of a given epistemology.

How do you know that your epistemology produces truth? "Well, I use my epistemology to validate my epistemology" 

Notice that you completely arbitrarily choose a specific kind of circular epistemology that you think is superior to all the others.

16 hours ago, r0ckyreed said:

You have to bite the bullet and accept that introspection is circular because it is the foundation of understanding.

Do you actually bite the bullet or do you choose arbitrarily an epistemology and then say that it produces truth in a 100% reliable way? 

 

 

Just to not lose track remember, that the point we originally started to argue about was whether your inability to question x means that x is abolutely true  . Im trying to argue that you just pressupose that 'not being to question x means x is absolutely true' and Im suggesting that you should admit the given limitations whatever epistemology you choose to go with and you shouldn't pretend that your epistemology is 100% reliable.

 

Edited June 6 by zurew

[zurew]

2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

These are only like the most difficult things to understand in all of existence.

Sounds like a good reason to try to be as clear in our understanding and thinking and in our langauge as possible about them.

2 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

And you want what exactly? 

Clarity and consistency.

1) Clarity on what is being meant by each word,  - since you use them constantly ,  you presumably know exactly what you mean by them .

2) Consistency regarding how you use your language

 

When it comes to any expert within a given field, they have their own specific jargon that they use and there is good reason for that. One obvious advantage is that you  create a language set that can be used in a very sharp way to differentiate between concepts (which can elevate understanding) and gives you the ability to point to very specific problems and concepts within that field and then the other advantage is that you can debate and converse more easily and more effectively.

Each of the buzzwords that I listed earlier, have a lot of semantic nuance to them  in that they can be interpreted in multiple ways and multiple definitions can be given to them. Since that is the case, and since you probably have contemplated about these concepts a lot - you probably have gone deep enough that by this point,  you should have a lot more nuance in your language regarding those concepts.

If you would ask an academic philosopher what they mean by "possible" or "impossible". They can give you a nuanced breakdown of each of those words and they might even be able to give you what their theory of meaning is. If I were to ask you the exact same question, I think you wouldn't be able to produce any clear answer to that question.

But you don't use the word "possible" and "impossible" a lot, so you can be given some leeway on that, however there is this weird word "truth" and you use it a lot and its incredibly strange to me that you never talk about the classical theories of truth and how you have never differentiated your theory of truth from the classical ones (if they are different in the firstplace).

 

 

2 hours ago, Someone here said:

@zurew its not meaningless. Its just multidimensional and perspectival.

If that is the case, then when pushed on it, you should be able to produce a very specific answer, if I specify the context or the perspective.

Or you yourself should be able to specify in which context or perspective your statement ought to be interpreted

Or you should be able to lay down the nuance regarding all the different ways how your statement can be interpreted.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But again, if your statement is so vague, that it can be interpreted in a million different ways even given a specific context, then I would consider that statement meaningless, cause you are not really communicating anything specific at that point.

2 hours ago, Someone here said:

Are you aware of Ludwig Wittgenstein's duck /rabbit?

You can either see the rabbit or see the duck.. You can either see one of them or the other at a time.. You can't  see the two simultaneously and realize that they are actually identical at once.. Only in a linear process of going through one and then other.. And then having the Insight "oh its not a rabbit OR a duck.. It's both simultaneously and only one of them relative to a certain perspective".  If this is understood.. Basically you don't have to read a single word in epistemology looking for the truth in this OR that.     Not- two.  Reality Is the rabbit - duck!! 

Notice that here you gave a nuanced breakdown regarding how it can be interpreted and then you give a specific answer how it ought to be interpreted.

I doubt though that Wittgenstein had a view on language where he would consider contradictions to be meaningful (but I can be wrong on that). To be clear by contradiction I mean (It is the case that X and it is not the case that X) where both X has the exact same meaning and interpreted in the exact same context.

Edited June 6 by zurew

[r0ckyreed]

@zurew The same method I use to validate my introspection is the same method you use to validate your logic.

You would be a fool if you doubt that you are reading these words right now. You cannot doubt it because you are doing it. Otherwise, there is no point in replying and having a conversation about this because then you doubt that too. You seem to be really certain that consciousness can be doubted without realizing that your doubt could not exist without consciousness.

If what you are saying is true, then you cannot even trust your own logic and criticisms that you have. You have never validated your own logic. How could you without using logic? 

Edited June 6 by r0ckyreed

[Leo Gura]

@zurew I've been quite explicit in explaining words like truth, consciousness, God, awakening, etc in my videos. I don't use those words vaguely.

But it's hard to know what these words means without deep direct experience of higher consciousness states.

I can't tell you what red is unless you've seen red.

Edited June 6 by Leo Gura

[zurew]

11 minutes ago, r0ckyreed said:

If what you are saying is true, then you cannot even trust your own logic and criticisms that you have.

You think thats something I would refuse to admit, but I can easily admit that yeah - I rely on a set of presuppositions that I cant justify and take them for granted out of necessity. The difference is that I don't pretend that I can't be wrong about those presuppositions or that there is no limitations to my epistemology.

Edited June 6 by zurew

[Someone here]

@zurew why are you blending me with Leo?  I disagree with almost the entire worldview of Leo regarding metaphysics but not Epistemology. 

 . Being..nothing..everything..infinity.. spirit.. consciousness..awareness.... knowledge..truth.. epistemology......ontology.. nonduality.. god...phenomena..noumena. Brahman.. reality.. Moksha..form..identity..enlightenment....experience etc  All of those have almost ZERO correspondence with anything tangible and they subsist mostly off of their correspondence with other made up words. Thinking about "nothing", "God".."infinity".. "consciousness" literally just conjures blank images in one's mind.

Truth in my book is this . And its 100% ineffable. And cannot be explained in any way .

End of the of the story. 

Edited June 6 by Someone here

[zurew]

1 hour ago, Someone here said:

why are you blending me with Leo?  I disagree with almost the entire worldview of Leo regarding metaphysics but not Epistemology. 

Unironically, It seems like I wasn't clear enough by what I meant by "you" given this context:

Quote

If that is the case, then when pushed on it, you should be able to produce a very specific answer, if I specify the context or the perspective.

Or you yourself should be able to specify in which context or perspective your statement ought to be interpreted

Or you should be able to lay down the nuance regarding all the different ways how your statement can be interpreted.

I used it in a way to refer to people in general, who would use that defence regarding what they meant.

I will add to it though, that its fine if you (again 'you' used here to refer to people in general) can't give a perfectly nuanced breakdown every time you use a word,however when it comes to certain topics (like spirituality, philosophy ) it would be cool to see more people being  more sensitive to how much semantic nuance there is  and to even  in some case(s) back down from certain debates or conversations up until you develop a sophisticated enough vocabulary, where if pushed on it,  you can give a nuanced breakdown of the language you are using (I personally have backed down multiple times in the past, and will do so in the future).

This is not just good for clearing up your langauge, this is also very helpful for clearing up your thinking and your understanding of a given concept. It is also a good way to prove that you have actually thought deeply about said concept, because you can use it in a highly context and paradigm sensitive way.

Edited June 6 by zurew

[UnbornTao]

 

[TheAlchemist]

14 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

No, I mean something far more radical. Imagine a reality where Christianity is literally true for everyone. And that is the only reality. A 100% Christian reality.

That would be a real test of God's dreaming skills.

So my question to you is: How good of a dreamer do you wager God is?

Is the implication here that there could exist a reality that is pure horror, torture and absolute suffering for a seemingly eternal amount of time? Also, not just could, but MUST every kind of reality also exist in true infinity?

Are there any sorts of functions that in any way direct how reality can be? For example, it seems to me that certain aspects of reality need to be convincing enough to an experiencer so that certain qualities/functions are possible.

For example being lucid in a dream basically stops the possibility of horror dreams or nightmares, since the dream is recognized as a dream and certain aspects of it cease to be convincing. 

But maybe also a reality could exist where it is impossible to become "lucid" or to awaken from the dream. Is awakening or lucidity or "seeing through" the dream (recognizing the dream as a dream) always in some way possible, no matter which reality is being imagined?

 

Edited June 6 by TheAlchemist

[Leo Gura]

57 minutes ago, TheAlchemist said:

Is the implication here that there could exist a reality that is pure horror, torture and absolute suffering for a seemingly eternal amount of time? Also, not just could, but MUST every kind of reality also exist in true infinity?

If you can imagine it, why can't God?

57 minutes ago, TheAlchemist said:

Are there any sorts of functions that in any way direct how reality can be? For example, it seems to me that certain aspects of reality need to be convincing enough to an experiencer so that certain qualities/functions are possible.

For example being lucid in a dream basically stops the possibility of horror dreams or nightmares, since the dream is recognized as a dream and certain aspects of it cease to be convincing.

I don't know.

57 minutes ago, TheAlchemist said:

But maybe also a reality could exist where it is impossible to become "lucid" or to awaken from the dream. Is awakening or lucidity or "seeing through" the dream (recognizing the dream as a dream) always in some way possible, no matter which reality is being imagined?

I'm not sure, but you're pretty much describing the situation of animals.

So yes, consciousness can get stuck in low states. Can it get forever stuck? I don't know, probably not.

[GLORY]

@Leo Gura

21 hours ago, GLORY said:

So when something concrete arises out of nothingness (=hidden infinite possibility space), then it becomes a conscious experience, right? 
Higher Consciousness = More hidden things in possibility space become unhidden = more concrete experience 

Do you agree with that 
 

21 hours ago, GLORY said:

But then, how it is decided what exactly arises out of the infinite possibility space ? 

Do you know the answer 
 

[Davino]

On 2/6/2024 at 11:46 PM, r0ckyreed said:

I have fallen into the trap of relativism of thinking that everything is relative; therefore, I cannot be wrong about anything.

It reminds me of the story of relativism. In ancient greek the Sophist were among the firsts to have the insight of Relativity. Then they used such insight and their rethoric abilities to justify selfish actions.

[Clarence]

9 hours ago, TheAlchemist said:

For example being lucid in a dream basically stops the possibility of horror dreams or nightmares, since the dream is recognized as a dream and certain aspects of it cease to be convincing.

That isn't true. I have many dreams in which I know I'm dreaming. Being lucid doesn't necessarily stop a nightmare. In the last lucid nightmare I had, I knew I was dreaming and I could consciously decide of my actions with the same awareness I have now, but all other characters had a will of their own and I could not decide for them. There were also events happening which were out of my control.

I knew it was a night dream as I was conscious of that, but I was still strongly affected by it as a real character of the dream, just as I know now that this life is a dream, but I am still strongly affected by it.

I could not just decide to wake up either. My will or state of consciousness was not strong or high enough to allow that. The same way that I can't awaken right now by my will alone. All I could do was dream until I finally woke up.

[Rafael Thundercat]

2 hours ago, Clarence said:

That isn't true. I have many dreams in which I know I'm dreaming. Being lucid doesn't necessarily stop a nightmare. In the last lucid nightmare I had, I knew I was dreaming and I could consciously decide of my actions with the same awareness I have now, but all other characters had a will of their own and I could not decide for them. There were also events happening which were out of my control.

I knew it was a night dream as I was conscious of that, but I was still strongly affected by it as a real character of the dream, just as I know now that this life is a dream, but I am still strongly affected by it.

I could not just decide to wake up either. My will or state of consciousness was not strong or high enough to allow that. The same way that I can't awaken right now by my will alone. All I could do was dream until I finally woke up.

Tonigth I had one of this dreams, I was clibimg a moutain and I found a old concrete structure on it. As I procced to climb it I found some weird stairs and lead me to the top of a bif flat area from where I could look around. From experience of other dreams I took care of looking around very slowly not letting my awareness get stuck in anything specific but just soaring the landscape like a drone. I could see buildings, roads, cars moving, people in parks walking, similar to those Sim games or GTA when you observe from a moutain top. The only control I had was to where to move my vision, the content of the dream was just to admiration, even the people walking and to where they move was not in my control, same as daily life, I move in the bubble and can have will over some aspects and most things are just happenings around moving by itself. There is no way to make things happen faster or slower, it is what it is, this moment by moment flow of instantiations. To be againt or in favor of anything are just another layer added to the dream.

The closer image I can describe from the dream is this one below from a youtube music video. Is like consciouness cant avoid to dream, it is addicted to dream forever.

Edited June 7 by Rafael Thundercat

[Davino]

On 4/6/2024 at 5:48 PM, Leo Gura said:

Outside a dream there is nothing.

But when you get outside the dream, what is there is just another dream, isn't it so?

Reality cannot scape its imaginary nature.

On 5/6/2024 at 11:53 PM, Leo Gura said:

Look, God encompasses all dualities you can think of, even the conscious and unconscious duality.

Have you awoken to God beyond consciousness?

I'm very intrigued by such possibility. 

On 6/6/2024 at 0:51 AM, Leo Gura said:

Your experience is still absolute and could not be otherwise.

However, absoluteness is a very tricky thing. Just because your experience is absolute does not mean stuff can't also be hidden.

@Leo Gura I've been wrestling with this for years now and I cannot find a higher synthesis. Maybe you could give me some insights.

1. I know experience is absolute and total, everything is always mediated through it and it can't be otherwise.

2. I know that my experience right now is not all there is to Existence or Reality.

What ends up happening is when I take the first Truth I deconstruct the second. I am imagining all that, and I just keep grounding myself deeper into direct experience till all of that is just a distant dream long once forgotten.

When I take the second Truth I go for wild new discoveries and I explore the recesses of my own mind and consciousness. Totally new states spawn into existence that are fresh and virgin.

However when I put first Truth and second Truth together I find a gap in my understanding. How can my experience be Absolute and yet not be Infinite now?

On 6/6/2024 at 0:51 AM, Leo Gura said:

I've been busy discovering crazy shit that no one understands or talks about. And I don't have a good way of talking about it.

I reached levels of consciousness I cannot make sense of or talk about. Utterly alien shit. And I don't know what to do with it.

New Awakenings, New ways of Communication.

You know I'm interested in all of that and I would love to see a Spirituality video from you soon. There are videos that may not be for the present audience but are to be left for the legacy of humanity, as milestones of consciousness. As it has been done in the past with ancient revelatory texts, now you also hold the responsability to make content for humans in the distant future. I find that such lens may be useful to release your most advanced content.

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, Davino said:

But when you get outside the dream, what is there is just another dream, isn't it so?

You can change dreams, or if you go beyond all dreams it's a formless ocean of emptiness/fullness.

1 hour ago, Davino said:

Have you awoken to God beyond consciousness?

In my view everything is Consciousness.

1 hour ago, Davino said:

I know experience is absolute and total, everything is always mediated through it and it can't be otherwise.

 

It's absolute but not necessarily total.

1 hour ago, Davino said:

What ends up happening is when I take the first Truth I deconstruct the second. I am imagining all that, and I just keep grounding myself deeper into direct experience till all of that is just a distant dream long once forgotten.

When I take the second Truth I go for wild new discoveries and I explore the recesses of my own mind and consciousness. Totally new states spawn into existence that are fresh and virgin.

Yes, I get it.

1 hour ago, Davino said:

However when I put first Truth and second Truth together I find a gap in my understanding. How can my experience be Absolute and yet not be Infinite now?

Absolute does not have to mean total.

1 hour ago, Davino said:

You know I'm interested in all of that and I would love to see a Spirituality video from you soon. There are videos that may not be for the present audience but are to be left for the legacy of humanity, as milestones of consciousness.

I am saving advanced stuff for the course.

[Davino]

37 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

if you go beyond all dreams it's a formless ocean of emptiness/fullness.

Why wouldn't you call that a dream?

As per my definition that is the dream of pure potentiality, or the dream that gives birth to all dreams, but why would it scape being a dream? 

36 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

It's absolute but not necessarily total.

Oh, that's it!

I still have to awaken to see the mechanics but that is very plausible. Thanks this has been huge.

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, nuwu said:

Is this defined as the main point of contention between (present) Actualized and Buddhism?

No

[Yimpa]

On 6/7/2024 at 6:47 AM, Davino said:

Why wouldn't you call that a dream?

No, you’d be Awake.

[r0ckyreed]

33 minutes ago, Yimpa said:

No, you’d be Awake.

It’s impossible to awaken because then you would just be awakening to another dream. You wake up from one dream to realize that you are still asleep in another. I guess “awakening” is realizing that there are infinite dreams and it is impossible to escape dreaming. Total Awakening from all dreams is itself a fantasy dream.