A question to Leo

[Someone here]

5 minutes ago, commie said:

Such definitions only impoverish language. Unless one intends to play word games, better only speak of appearance and leave existence out of it. By leaving existence out of it, one could also perhaps focus on doing something useful with whatever doesn't appear.

That said, I doubt your "in other words" is quite accurate. Evidently appearance is supposed to be inclusive of conceptual objects.

I get you.. so you're saying in any case I will never experience anything outside of experience!!  What a revolutionary insight.  I basically don't disagree with that.  The question is there something outside of experience? These two separate things.  That fact that you can't experience something outside of consciousness doesn't equal that there is nothing outside of consciousness. Even tho there is nothing outside of consciousness FOR YOU. 

[Dodo]

18 minutes ago, Javfly33 said:

@Dodo Instead of contemplating about objects outside/inside awaraness, I suggest you to contemplate about people (Points of Views like the one you have).

Do the same inquiry, Being aware of a Point of View VS Not being aware of a Point of View.

Following your logic, you are right that the fact that you are not experiencing the Point of View of Barack Obama, that doesn´t mean that Barack Obama Point of View doesn´t exist.

So nobody is actually denying your logic. But your logic is using the word "existence" as it would be the simplest word in the world. Existence is a tricky word.

Is the same 'existence' you experiencing Barack Obama Point of View vs you thinking that Barack Obama Point of View exists? Are both scenarios the same, really? 

Is the same to think/imagine you fuck a hot girl vs actually fucking her? 

Make a search (ctrl+f) of the word existence on this page. Now check how many times I said existence. You're arguing with yourself. You have not grasped what I am saying, I never talked about existence. I was talking about awareness, the space in which this experience appears, undeniably. And beyond which space, undeniably, I cannot know, that something exists - nor that it doesn't exist. MU 

If I see a PC, I know that it has a hard drive and some mechanisms that make the PC work, without my conscious awareness of them. You say there is nothing in your computer. Bruh! That's like flat earth talk right there, but coming from a perceived enlightnd1 pov 

About your last statement: You are asleep. How do I know? An awakened being would not be talking to me about lust, but about love. Check yourself, my friend. Get in line and humble yourself, because Love is the highest power. You lost all meaning due to brainwashing of gurus, instead of listening to your own pure heart. Do not fail yourself, kind sir. Know that you don't know, or else you are just blissfully ignorant.

Open yourself to something bigger than yourself. Literally 

Edited October 21, 2020 by Dodo

[Javfly33]

9 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

Yah you can look at is awareness is exploring itself from an Infinite number of angles simultaneously - but the substance is nothing.  Nothing permeates through everything, such that there is nothing happening right now.

The funny thing is, for anything to exist you must be there to be aware of it. So I am all things andd angles, always. Lol. When it hit me it was soooo obvious. And from being a little kid i remember sitting in my room during the night looking at furniture and not being able to make sense how the furniture could exist when I would be sleeping. In fact I was right  Kids are so intelligent we get stupid as we get older dont you think  

Edited October 21, 2020 by Javfly33

[commie]

6 minutes ago, Someone here said:

I get you.. so you're saying in any case I will never experience anything outside of experience!!

No, that's not what I was saying. But it hardly matters since neither of us disagree.

6 minutes ago, Someone here said:

That fact that you can't experience something outside of consciousness doesn't equal that there is nothing outside of consciousness. Even tho there is nothing outside of consciousness FOR YOU. 

Sure, that is what not being a solipsist implies.

Edited October 21, 2020 by commie
added context

[Member]

There is formless and the appearance of it. Outside of appearance is nothing. Appearance/existence/being can have infinite forms or expressions but there is nothing separate that goes beyond that.

[The0Self]

1 minute ago, Javfly33 said:

The funny thing is, for anything to exist you must be there to be aware of it. When it hit me it was soooo obvious. And from being a little kid i remember sitting in my room during the night looking at furniture and not being able to make sense how the furniture could exist when I would be sleeping. In fact I was right  Kids are so intelligent we get stupid as we get older dont you think  

That seems to be correct, since "exist" is a dualistic term and awareness is also dualistic. What is, though, has no need of an awareness of it, it's already what is, and it's unfathomable, and it's everything.

[Javfly33]

3 minutes ago, Dodo said:

Make a search (ctrl+f) of the word existence on this page. Now check how many times I said existence. You're arguing with yourself. You have not grasped what I am saying, I never talked about existence. I was talking about awareness, the space in which this experience appears, undeniably. And beyond which space, undeniably, I cannot know, that something exists.

If I see a PC, I know that it has a hard drive and some mechanisms that make the PC work, without my conscious awareness of them. You say there is nothing in your computer. Bruh! That's like flat earth talk right there, but coming from a perceived enlightnd1 pov 

You are still not getting it where I am pointing to.

Contemplate what existence is.

If you keep assuming a hot girl is the same as a thought about a hot girl, then bro, I can´t help you with that. I guess one day you´ll get it.

 

 

[electroBeam]

36 minutes ago, Someone here said:

Careful guys don't mess around with Nahm too much.. He will roast you and completely deconstruct every word you say and you might n̶o̶t̶ know your way back home again. Just sayin ?

 

[Someone here]

4 minutes ago, commie said:

Sure, that is what not being a solipsist implies.

Exactly. For both the solipsist and the materialist.. the assumption =the conclusion. 

For something to exist it has to be experienced.. And I can't experience something if I'm not experiencing it.. Therefore nothing exists unless I'm experiencing it duh ?.......... But the whole devil is in the first bolded statement because you just have to ASSUME that it's true. 

[Dodo]

13 minutes ago, The0Self said:

However, the experience that there's something beyond the appearance is dualism. There is nothing else other than unbounded everything. These words are everything, the past is everything, the future is everything, typing is everything. That's what they're pointing to.

Then if they point to that, why dont they just say Love? 

[SoonHei]

EVERYONE! HELLO!!!

DINNER IS READY!

 

[Dodo]

Just now, SoonHei said:

EVERYONE! HELLO!!!

DINNER IS READY!

 

bam lol

[Javfly33]

7 minutes ago, Someone here said:

Exactly. For both the solipsist and the materialist.. the assumption =the conclusion. 

For something to exist it has to be experienced.. And I can't experience something if I'm not experiencing it.. Therefore nothing exists unless I'm experiencing it duh ?.......... But the whole devil is in the first bolded statement because you just have to ASSUME that it's true. 

Can Barack´s Obama POV exist if it´s not being experienced?

You´ll say...

Quote

"well, I don´t know". "I can´t prove it but it could exist, right?".

But what you are missing is that is not neccesary to prove it 

---- > Notice that POV needs a First direct experience because that´s what a Pov Is...a point of view...

So let´s be clear ----> A POV is a direct experience (A point of View). Is not a thought.

So how could you prove that Barack Obama´s POV exists?

That you actually experience it.

 

Edited October 21, 2020 by Javfly33

[Inliytened1]

21 minutes ago, Dodo said:

If I see a PC, I know that it has a hard drive and some mechanisms that make the PC work, without my conscious awareness of them.

That's not true.  The mechanisms within the pc are something you are imagining.  If you open the PC you will see parts because You are imagning it.  Just like if you opened your skull you would see a brain.

There is only what appears in your direct experience.  Appearance literally is existence because again - reality is completely hollow.  That is a ramification of Infinity.

[commie]

10 minutes ago, Someone here said:

Exactly. For both the solipsist and the materialist.. the assumption =the conclusion. 

For something to exist it has to be experienced.. And I can't experience something if I'm not experiencing it.. Therefore nothing exists unless I'm experiencing it duh ?.......... But the whole devil is in the first bolded statement because you just have to ASSUME that it's true. 

The bicycle kid has already demonstrated that's not where the "whole devil" is I think.

Instead, I'm curious about what assumption you figure the materialist is making because I can't guess what materialism has to do with this.

[Someone here]

15 minutes ago, Javfly33 said:

Can Barack´s Obama POV exist if it´s not being experienced?

You´ll say...

But what you are missing is that is not neccesary to prove it 

---- > Notice that POV needs a First direct experience because that´s what a Pov Is...a point of view...

So let´s be clear ----> A POV is a direct experience (A point of View). Is not a thought.

So how could you prove that Barack Obama´s POV exists?

That you actually experience it.

 

This is speculation.. It's definitely possible for two independent POVs to exist.   Take two cameras.. And record your room from two angles.. Check out the room from the two angles.. So here you go you have two POVs ofcourse each camera has no access to the other camera.. Yet they both exist independently simultaneously .. Now turn off one camera.. And check out the other one.. Does turning off one camera affect the other camera?????? Ofcourse no.   Nothing mysterious about it. Common sense stuff.  Now apply that to your pov and barack Obama's pov. Why can't it be that way?  Because you are too attached to your own camera and you think it's the whole world? 

[Dodo]

14 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

That's not true.  The mechanisms within the pc are something you are imagining.  If you open the PC you will see parts because You are imagning it.  Just like if you opened your skull you would see a brain.

There is only what appears in your direct experience.  Appearance literally is existence because again - reality is completely hollow.  That is a ramification of Infinity.

This is the truth of direct experience. Direct experience is not all that is. The now is not all that is, that's where you're getting it wrong.

You begin with the assumption : Direct experience is all that is, and from that LIMITATION ON THE ABSOLUTE, you get a deeper truth confirming what you originally assumed.

Not unlike anyone else on this planet. Boring. Now place the seed of love and see what grows from that. 

It's hard for the Godhead to see the Godheart 

Your Truth is empty, your truth is hollow. That's why you say: reality is completely hollow. That's your projection. As is it not you, who creates reality in your own words? So wake up. To. Not. Knowing. 

 

 

 

 

[Javfly33]

@Someone here 

7 minutes ago, Someone here said:

This is speculation.. It's definitely possible for two independent POVs to exist.  

Really? 

Isn´t a POV a direct experience of a perspective (point of view)?

I am not talking about POV as a thought or concept.

I am literally talking about POV as an experience. 

What is the only way that Barack Obama life can exist? 

[Inliytened1]

2 minutes ago, Dodo said:

This is the truth of direct experience. Direct experience is not all that is. The now is not all that is, that's where you're getting it wrong.

You begin with the assumption : Direct experience is all that is, and from that LIMITATION ON THE ABSOLUTE, you get a deeper truth confirming what you originally assumed.

Not unlike anyone else on this planet. Boring. Now place the seed of love and see what grows from that. 

It's hard for the Godhead to see the Godheart 

Your Truth is empty, your truth is hollow. That's why you say: reality is completely hollow. That's your projection. As is it not you, who creates reality in your own words? So wake up. To. Not. Knowing. 

 

 

 

 

Dont believe me find out for yourself

What is something that is also nothing?

A dream.  

 

[Someone here]

25 minutes ago, commie said:

The bicycle kid has already demonstrated that's not where the "whole devil" is I think.

Instead, I'm curious about what assumption you figure the materialist is making because I can't guess what materialism has to do with this.

Both the materialist' view and the solipsist's view are  circular. The conclusion is already in the assumption.    The assumption that you start with is the conclusion that you end up with.   So it can't possibly be true. 

@Javfly33 read above. Won't explain it to you again.   You don't know what is "the only way possible" for xyz. You just assume that. 

Edited October 21, 2020 by Someone here