Evolution vs. Legacy

[Forestluv]

1 hour ago, Gesundheit said:

Connect that with OP. Let's say you've become a Trump supporter. How would you handle it? At least, how do you expect you would? Do you even think it's possible? Likely or unlikely? What does this kind of change depend on in your current opinion?

This gets into the construct of a self. There are both consistent patterns and continual changes of a self construct.

Asking what if I became a Trump supporter is like asking "What if we took a clay elephant and remolded it into a giraffe?". Then the clay mold has undergone changes. 

I would say some changes are very unlikely. For example, patterns of "me" include being introverted and speaking English. It's very unlikely I will wake up tomorrow as a Bollywood dancer that speaks Hindi.

21 minutes ago, Gesundheit said:

"Problems" is an imaginary construct too! And it depends on one's agendas.

Of course. All constructs are imagined. 

22 minutes ago, Gesundheit said:

"Mind/interpretation/belief" are imaginary constructs, until we decide otherwise. 

Of course. All constructs are imagined. That is the nature of creating constructs. 

23 minutes ago, Gesundheit said:

What about the construct of constructs? Is it an assumption or truth? You're choosing to view things from a relativistic/construct-aware lens. But that's just your way of looking at things.

Yes, a construct of constructs has assumptions. 

Yes, there are domains in which actuality is not constructed in the manner I am doing here. 

28 minutes ago, Gesundheit said:

I am rather questioning the validity of constructs in and of themselves. One question that arises is: Why is a construct important?

This is a tricky area. .  . What is "valid"? And who decides what is "valid". There is groundless grounding. Formless form. We can create definitions of "valid", yet upon closer inspection, there is no definition that is 100% universal, since universal is One. 

From one perspective, constructs are unimportant. From the essence of infinity, ISness can be interpreted infinitely. Imagine reading every book that has ever been written and then someone asking you "Tell me what the book was about?". From one perspective, this is pointless. You have read millions of books, to create one contextualization means that you are dismissing millions of other contextualizations. Why even bother?

Yet to create contextualizations is part of human nature. Humans love to create and tell all sorts of stories. They would much rather tell one story of millions of possibilities than to tell know story. Yet any book I describe to you, you can say "but that's just one book! There are lots of other books!". Of course, yet I cannot describe millions of books simultaneously. All I could say is "Nothing", "Everything" or remain silent. Some awakened beings choose to do this and live simple lives of Beingness. Other awakened beings have a desire to create stories and share those stories with others. 

9 minutes ago, Gesundheit said:

Truth and value are similar in the context of bigger picture/holistic thinking.

I can see that. Bigger picture / holistic mindsets are oriented toward inclusion. Therefore, they value truth such that value and truth become similar. 

For example, if we were contracting maps of Europe, a holistic thinker would value including as many nuggets of truth as possible. This mindset would want to include various aspects of geography, politics, climate, architecture, history into the map. If someone pointed out that they were missing a piece from Hungary, a holistic mindset would want to include it - since a holistic mindset wants as many pieces of the puzzle included as possible.

Yet as you seem to suggest, there can be a price for doing this. For example, if we include too many pieces, we may never finish creating our map. Or if we are creating a map for hikers, we want zoomed in details of hiking trails. Zooming too far out can mean adding in extraneous stuff, like explanations of storms from the 1970s, that don't have much relevance to the task at hand. 

Quite often, holistic thinkers go into zones that are impractical for tasks at hand. 

16 minutes ago, Gesundheit said:

But still, bigger picture/holistic thinking is not absolute truth. It may be closer to absolute truth from a certain perspective on certain levels, but essentially isn't it the same as small picture thinking/closed-mindedness?

I agree that bigger picture/holistic thinking is not absolute truth. I would go one step further and say big picture thinking is no closer to absolute truth than small picture thinking. I've gone into conscious states of infinite complexity, in which there were an infinite number of connections appearing as One. If also entered conscious states of infinite simplicity. One time I stared at a single blade of grass and realized it's infinite nature. 

I have a friend who is super simplistic. Sometimes when I am creating stories and concepts she will shrug and simply say "It is what it is". . . She isn't stupid, she can see the simplicity of what is. Intellectuals will gloss over that phrase since it's so simplistic, yet it goes extremely deep. 

16 minutes ago, Gesundheit said:

In terms of value, the mind is trying to control value and distribute it in the way it sees fit. Yet, in practice, the mind is too limited to know everything. It does not posses infinite intelligence. So, while on the one hand, it may be creating desired results, on the other hand, it might as well be creating problems in the long run that it cannot forsee no matter how big/holistic it gets.

I like this point. The mind likes narrative control and is strongly influenced by what it perceives as value.

I also agree that the human mind is limited and cannot know everything. I use the analogy of holding three grains of sand as knowledge. Relative to all the grains of sand in all the beaches, three sand grains is virtually nothing. Being aware of this will spare a mind from many tensions. 

A mind can become aware of this by entering transcendent consciousness in which the human mind becomes super human. Now, the mind has become all the sand in the world. As it returns to human mind form, it cannot capture all the sand. Back in a limited human mind, it may realize it now hold six grains of sand, rather than three grains of sand. That is a 100% increase, which may feel massive to the person. Yet I would say the bigger realization is the awareness of sandy beaches, even if it is no longer held by the person. 

For minds that resonate with psychedelics, it can go from holding a few grains of sand to a bucket of sand, to a beach, to all beaches. Yet when the mind returns to conventional human form, the mind tries to make sense of it. Yet confusion and contractions often occur. The mind tries to create beaches with the six grains of sand it holds. This is a very low resolution - which is why most minds need to return to beach form 100s of times. The trick is that most minds are not aware of this limitation, that in human form they only hold a few grains of sand. Collectively, we are all all beaches. At the human level, there is an enormous price to pay for this realization + embodiment, yet at the transhuman level the payoff is also enormous. 

[Gesundheit]

5 hours ago, Forestluv said:

Asking what if I became a Trump supporter is like asking "What if we took a clay elephant and remolded it into a giraffe?". Then the clay mold has undergone changes. 

I was asking specifically because of the what is wisdom video. Having strong opinions on wisdom and foolishness seems kind of dangerous if we consider change. I think Leo probably thought that spirituality is foolishness back when he was atheist.

5 hours ago, Forestluv said:

I would say some changes are very unlikely. For example, patterns of "me" include being introverted and speaking English. It's very unlikely I will wake up tomorrow as a Bollywood dancer that speaks Hindi.

LMFAO! That image! 

5 hours ago, Forestluv said:

Of course. All constructs are imagined. That is the nature of creating constructs.

Not to a stage Blue person, or a little child (for example). Would you say the nature of constructs changes? Or our relationship to it? Perhaps I'm questioning the distinction between real and imaginary here.

5 hours ago, Forestluv said:

Yes, there are domains in which actuality is not constructed in the manner I am doing here.

I'm not sure I understand this.

Tbc..

[Gesundheit]

5 hours ago, Forestluv said:

Yet to create contextualizations is part of human nature. Humans love to create and tell all sorts of stories. They would much rather tell one story of millions of possibilities than to tell know story. Some awakened beings choose to do this and live simple lives of Beingness. Other awakened beings have a desire to create stories and share those stories with others. 

Is creating contextualizations really part of human nature? Can't a human live without any contextualizations? What's the relationship between enlightenment and constructing narratives? Let's say enlightenment means the total liberation that many teachers talk about. Are the teachers themselves totally liberated? Or are they still stuck in egoic patterns of teaching?

Quote

Quite often, holistic thinkers go into zones that are impractical for tasks at hand.

Yep. Philosophy.

Quote

I agree that bigger picture/holistic thinking is not absolute truth. I would go one step further and say big picture thinking is no closer to absolute truth than small picture thinking. I've gone into conscious states of infinite complexity, in which there were an infinite number of connections appearing as One. If also entered conscious states of infinite simplicity. One time I stared at a single blade of grass and realized it's infinite nature.

I have a friend who is super simplistic. Sometimes when I am creating stories and concepts she will shrug and simply say "It is what it is". . . She isn't stupid, she can see the simplicity of what is. Intellectuals will gloss over that phrase since it's so simplistic, yet it goes extremely deep.

I agree. But also there's a distinction here. Since holistic thinking is not simplistic thinking, it has a different relationship to reality/absolute truth. In other words, each is a unique manifestation of absolute truth. So they're not equal in terms of value, but they are equal in terms of truth. I'm now thinking, how did truth and value become distinct here when I took holistic thinking to its extreme by including simplicity?

I tend to be like your friend. I don't like going too much into philosophical zones. I'm mostly practice-oriented, but I also have my philosophical moments.

Quote

I like this point. The mind likes narrative control and is strongly influenced by what it perceives as value.

I also agree that the human mind is limited and cannot know everything. I use the analogy of holding three grains of sand as knowledge. Relative to all the grains of sand in all the beaches, three sand grains is virtually nothing. Being aware of this will spare a mind from many tensions. 

A mind can become aware of this by entering transcendent consciousness in which the human mind becomes super human. Now, the mind has become all the sand in the world. As it returns to human mind form, it cannot capture all the sand. Back in a limited human mind, it may realize it now hold six grains of sand, rather than three grains of sand. That is a 100% increase, which may feel massive to the person. Yet I would say the bigger realization is the awareness of sandy beaches, even if it is no longer held by the person. 

For minds that resonate with psychedelics, it can go from holding a few grains of sand to a bucket of sand, to a beach, to all beaches. Yet when the mind returns to conventional human form, the mind tries to make sense of it. Yet confusion and contractions often occur. The mind tries to create beaches with the six grains of sand it holds. This is a very low resolution - which is why most minds need to return to beach form 100s of times. The trick is that most minds are not aware of this limitation, that in human form they only hold a few grains of sand. Collectively, we are all all beaches. At the human level, there is an enormous price to pay for this realization + embodiment, yet at the transhuman level the payoff is also enormous. 

Damn! I miss those times lol.

Is it unrealistic to seek becoming a beach within/during one human lifetime? Should I accept the few grains that I currently have and just drop the rest of the sand?

Edited March 16, 2021 by Gesundheit

[Someone here]

14 hours ago, Gesundheit said:

Deconstruct the concept of evidence. Ask yourself; What is evidence? Or maybe create a thread lol.

.

You just gave me an idea lol 

[Gesundheit]

3 minutes ago, Someone here said:

You just gave me an idea lol 

Rather, I actually took it from you.

Which is prior? Evidence or non-evidence?

[Someone here]

35 minutes ago, Gesundheit said:

Rather, I actually took it from you.

Which is prior? Evidence or non-evidence?

I don't understand the question! 

[Gesundheit]

5 hours ago, Someone here said:

I don't understand the question! 

I'm asking you whether you can find the thing we call "evidence" in nature or on your rooftops. If you can't find it, then where is it located?

Before you've gotten into school and learned logic, did "evidence" exist for you?

Has "evidence" remained the same or has it been changing and evolving over time?

Et cetera.

[Someone here]

18 hours ago, Gesundheit said:

I'm asking you whether you can find the thing we call "evidence" in nature or on your rooftops. If you can't find it, then where is it located?

Before you've gotten into school and learned logic, did "evidence" exist for you?

Has "evidence" remained the same or has it been changing and evolving over time?

Et cetera.

There is different kinds of evidence depending on the nature of the thing that we are trying to prove. Evidence just means proof.  There is empirical evidence (seeing the sun is an evidence of its existence). There is deductions or logical evidence. And there is mathematical evidence which some say it's the most credible one. But for me empirical evidence is the strongest. Because you can't deny or refute something you have direct experience of.    Now what evidence did Leo provide for 'reality is imaginary'??? (meaning it's a subjective hallucination not an objective world). 

[Gesundheit]

30 minutes ago, Someone here said:

(seeing the sun is an evidence of its existence).

How exactly? What is the sun? What if what you're thinking is the sun is actually just a light bulb nailed to the sky which is the ceiling? What if it's not even that, but rather a collective hallucination?

Perception is not truth.

[Someone here]

3 minutes ago, Gesundheit said:

How exactly? What is the sun? What if what you're thinking is the sun is actually just a light bulb nailed to the sky which is the ceiling? What if it's not even that, but rather a collective hallucination?

Perception is not truth.

No no no... 

There is a difference between the content of experience and the context of the experience. 

The content is absolute Truth.. What you experience right now is Truth undeniably.. 

How you interpret the experience is context... This might be not what you thought it was... But that doesn't change the content... 

[Gesundheit]

@Someone here

So, where does that leave us with evidence? Is proof/evidence a context or a content? How can we prove something that we don't even know?

Edited March 17, 2021 by Gesundheit

[Someone here]

@Gesundheit it started with my assessment that Leo should take back or reconsider some of his psychedelic insights because it simply lacks evidence. You then got all weird about it lol.. 

[Gesundheit]

6 minutes ago, Someone here said:

@Gesundheit it started with my assessment that Leo should take back or reconsider some of his psychedelic insights because it simply lacks evidence. You then got all weird about it lol.. 

Nice cop-out.

[Someone here]

3 hours ago, Gesundheit said:

Nice cop-out.

What lol

That's literally what happened. You should've discussed those things that I said Leo should reconsider instead of discussing what 'evidence' means. I think the word 'evidence' is very common and it's meaning is well known. Look it up in the dictionary lol.