So does the flying spaghetti monster exist or does it not?!

[Federico del pueblo]

What I mean is: if everything is imaginary and just mind stuff or consciousness, how could we still argue that the e.g. New York City is something that does exist in a sense, whilst the flying spaghetti monster is just nonsense. 

How can imaginary things like NYC be distinguished from other imaginary things like the flying spaghetti monster?

I mean, one can fly to NYC and actually touch the brooklyin bridge and so on, whilst the flying spaghetti monster could never be more than some vague image in your mind.

Do we need two different categories like "imaginary" and "imaginary imaginary"?

I'm struggling to understand if distinctions between "real/truthful" and "completely nonsensical" actually still can or should be made or are valid.

[Mafortu]

Better ask yourself, are you real?, or just a temporary work of fiction imagined by god?

When you imagine Harry Potter, you are making him real. Is Harry Potter a tax-paying living humanoid walking amongst us? Guess not. From an absolute perspective there is no distinction between what we label as material or fictional, ultimately all and everything is God.

[Leo Gura]

It exists in this dream of yours as a concept.

A fundamental part of how your Mind constructs "material reality" is by creating a distinction between actual vs conceptual things.

But of course you could stop dreaming that distinction, which could allow a Flying Spaghetti Monster to materialize. But the ego has no control over this. Therefore you don't take the possibility seriously and dismiss it as "fantasy" or wishful thinking.

But if you took enough Salvia or LSD, you could see a real material Flying Spaghetti Monster. Of course afterwards you would probably rationalize it away as "unreal". But you're doing that in order to maintain your construction of a "material reality". If you didn't actively do this, material reality would start to dematerialize, which you would perceive as going insane.

Understand this: if you allowed yourself to see a physical Flying Spaghetti Monster you would think you lost your mind and start taking anti-psychotic medication just to curb the fear of losing your mind.

People don't realize how much their "reality" and "sanity" are connected.

The highest spiritual insights and experiences would be considered insane by most people. This must be the case in order to maintain the illusion of "material reality."

If someone like Jordan Peterson took enough psychedelics or meditated long enough, he would start to go insane and freak the fuck out as his whole sense of reality collapsed around him. It would be quite dangerous.

[Federico del pueblo]

38 minutes ago, Leo Gura said:

It exists in this dream of yours as a concept.

A fundamental part of how your Mind constructs "material reality" is by creating a distinction between actual vs conceptual things.

But of course you could stop dreaming that distinction, which could allow a Flying Spaghetti Monster to materialize. But the ego has no control over this. Therefore you don't take the possibility seriously and dismiss it as "fantasy" or wishful thinking.

But if you took enough Salvia or LSD, you could see a real material Flying Spaghetti Monster. Of course afterwards you would probably rationalize it away as "unreal". But you're doing that in order to maintain your construction of a "material reality". If you didn't actively do this, material reality would start to dematerialize, which you would perceive as going insane.

Understand this: if you allowed yourself to see a physical Flying Spaghetti Monster you would think you lost your mind and start taking anti-psychotic medication just to curb the fear of losing your mind.

People don't realize how much their "reality" and "sanity" are connected.

The highest spiritual insights and experiences would be considered insane by most people. This must be the case in order to maintain the illusion of "material reality."

If someone like Jordan Peterson took enough psychedelics or meditated long enough, he would start to go insane and freak the fuck out as his whole sense of reality collapsed around him. It would be quite dangerous.

Thanks! This clarifies a lot!

But one more question:

If I took an axe and chopped my index finger off, for the rest of my human lifetime I would not get my finger back (not attached to the hand at least).

But if I took a high dose of salvia and then saw the flying spaghetti monster (lol) and it would act aggressively and bite my index finger off, probably after the trip I would still have my index finger right?

Is this because I imagine the physical laws of the universe to be completely real or for another reason?

Could it be any different than how I described too?

[Leo Gura]

31 minutes ago, Federico del pueblo said:

But if I took a high dose of salvia and then saw the flying spaghetti monster (lol) and it would act aggressively and bite my index finger off, probably after the trip I would still have my index finger right?

That's not so clear.

Quote

Is this because I imagine the physical laws of the universe to be completely real or for another reason?

You could think of it as: your life is a flow of consciousness, like a giant river. And then a single trip is like diverting that river using a wooden dam. But the river is so strong is breaks down your dam after a while and continues to flow like it has for years. It's hard to change the flow of the entire river permanently without nuking the whole river.

You could end your dream at any moment, but you wouldn't dare.

Quote

Could it be any different than how I described too?

It could be however you imagine.

[RMQualtrough]

@Leo Gura What I'm curious about, is if there is, say, a Johnny Bravo with a relative view of reality in the sense that you and I have different relative experiences of this material universe.

Of course on a larger scale, no human has consciousness but consciousness has humans, there are no "others" etc, I get that and it makes the above phrasing seem wrong I know.

But would an infinity basically necessitate the existence of something identical to Johnny Bravo with an ego, first person relative perspective of reality, and cartoon universe? In a true literal infinity it seems to me it must be a certainty that every episode of a TV show we watch, must have an actual "reality" in some other universe etc.

You probably get what I mean.

[Gesundheit2]

You're asking a materialistic question and trying to answer it from the idealistic paradigm. It won't work.

[Leo Gura]

1 hour ago, RMQualtrough said:

@Leo Gura What I'm curious about, is if there is, say, a Johnny Bravo with a relative view of reality in the sense that you and I have different relative experiences of this material universe.

Of course on a larger scale, no human has consciousness but consciousness has humans, there are no "others" etc, I get that and it makes the above phrasing seem wrong I know.

But would an infinity basically necessitate the existence of something identical to Johnny Bravo with an ego, first person relative perspective of reality, and cartoon universe? In a true literal infinity it seems to me it must be a certainty that every episode of a TV show we watch, must have an actual "reality" in some other universe etc.

You probably get what I mean.

The deepest consciousness I've reached is that there is only you. No on else.

[Dazgwny]

Intensity of imagination. The more intense the more solidified and material it’ll be. When you seemingly travel to New York, it is so intensely imagined that you create a full on cubic reality. You do this wherever you are, because if you didn’t your reality would begin to collapse, as does on lsd with a high enough dose. Only this would be happening without the use of psychedelics and therefore of course you would feel as though your going insane. The same happens with a night dream, you imagine so intensely that it create a solid cubic reality for you to seemingly navigate. Become lucid in that dream and it’ll begin to melt or morph or collapse. Depending on how lucid you become will either keep the solidified reality and you just navigate it, or realise that not only are you in a dream, but you are the dream, and everything in it. Creating it through pure imagination. God mode in your sleep. Our waking reality is pretty much the same thing, and the levels of how lucid you are in this waking state, in the same fashion pretty much determine how awake you are in the terms of what spirituality is about. The waking state is much more intensely imagined than the dream state, hence why it’s so much more difficult to break out of. But even still more often than not the sleeping dream will have you fooled nearly every night, even if there’s a spaghetti monster in it?. God can certainly create a living material spaghetti monster, but you don’t do it, and probably for good reason, to keep you grounded in this life that you’ve created, solid, material and structured, with the spaghetti monster as so called imaginative fantasy

[Federico del pueblo]

Ok, thanks for all the answers!

[Nahm]

13 hours ago, Federico del pueblo said:

Do we need two different categories like "imaginary" and "imaginary imaginary"?

Nope. 

[BipolarGrowth]

It’s possible to have just as direct experience of a Flying Spaghetti Monster as New York City if you focused on that goal long enough in your life and psychedelics/other methods. A lot of what psychedelics do is confirm what you’re already focused on, believe, etc. The thing is that no one gives a enough of a shit to do that with the Flying Spaghetti Monster lol. 

[RMQualtrough]

13 hours ago, Leo Gura said:

The deepest consciousness I've reached is that there is only you. No on else.

I'm curious what is meant by this. I understand many elements, but I wonder how this works...

As far as I can tell, even though what the word I points to is seeing through both of our eyes concurrently, it is not possible for me to describe what you are seeing right nos through this mouth or identity. And vice versa.

There seems to be many relative perspectives at once, and we may label each of those perspectives as a being of some sort. As I type to you from this being here I can only access this perspective. I assume you also do have one.

[Leo Gura]

5 hours ago, RMQualtrough said:

I assume you also do have one.

That's a risky assumption.

[Ry4n]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

That's a risky assumption.

Lmao Leo is an NPC in the relative world hell yeah 

[RMQualtrough]

2 hours ago, Ry4n said:

Lmao Leo is an NPC in the relative world hell yeah 

I think he means Absolutely, that the only experience happening is the one that appears to be localized from Leo.

Of course I know I do have an inner world, so it is an impassè. I would wonder of course, why others lie about seeing from their eyes etc. If they are literally just NPC type beings. It doesn't appear within my control, so what is deciding that they lie, if only this identity's human perspective mind exists?

[Federico del pueblo]

14 hours ago, BipolarGrowth said:

It’s possible to have just as direct experience of a Flying Spaghetti Monster as New York City if you focused on that goal long enough in your life and psychedelics/other methods.

I can grasp that. Though, why is it completely effortless to have the NYC experience if I live there and a lot of work to have the spaghetti monster experience including the use of a substance? It still seems like there are different realms. 

Also if I really did use Salvia and then see the spaghetti monster you could probably videotape me during my trip and not find any spaghetti monster in the video, whilst for me it would have been clearly there and more real than anything else. 

So now that everything is imaginary, what should stop someone from claiming that God is indeed a bearded man in the clouds? I mean if he can imagine such a thing, isn't it then true in a sense (or just as imaginary as e.g. the city of New York)?

[RMQualtrough]

1 hour ago, Federico del pueblo said:

I can grasp that. Though, why is it completely effortless to have the NYC experience if I live there and a lot of work to have the spaghetti monster experience including the use of a substance? It still seems like there are different realms. 

Also if I really did use Salvia and then see the spaghetti monster you could probably videotape me during my trip and not find any spaghetti monster in the video, whilst for me it would have been clearly there and more real than anything else. 

So now that everything is imaginary, what should stop someone from claiming that God is indeed a bearded man in the clouds? I mean if he can imagine such a thing, isn't it then true in a sense (or just as imaginary as e.g. the city of New York)?

You'll find that in every way it is both true and false. Both X and Y. E.g. it is not New York City in the absolute sense, but it is New York City through your eyes.

A bearded man in the clouds is not what it is absolutely, but relatively it might be. Probably many Bible folk really saw such figures, and the fact they SAW the figures is undisputed and the figures are "real" as such. While also being unreal.

It is both nothing and something, sized and sizeless, in time and without time, colored and colorless. It seems to work this way on every matter I can think of. If it is truly a sheer literal infinity that would make sense as to why that is the case (also yes it is both finite and infinite).

[BipolarGrowth]

2 hours ago, Federico del pueblo said:

I can grasp that. Though, why is it completely effortless to have the NYC experience if I live there and a lot of work to have the spaghetti monster experience including the use of a substance? It still seems like there are different realms. 

Also if I really did use Salvia and then see the spaghetti monster you could probably videotape me during my trip and not find any spaghetti monster in the video, whilst for me it would have been clearly there and more real than anything else. 

So now that everything is imaginary, what should stop someone from claiming that God is indeed a bearded man in the clouds? I mean if he can imagine such a thing, isn't it then true in a sense (or just as imaginary as e.g. the city of New York)?

Why is it effortless to breathe air but hard to breathe iron? Because there are conditions of existence/experience currently in place. Bending those conditions becomes harder and harder. The question of a bearded God in the clouds isn’t even a question. Numerous people have experienced that vision of God. It’s just a projection/misunderstanding though to think a single thing, being, image, etc. is God. The experience itself is as valid as eating toast. One is just more rare. All are equally actual when the experience occurs. 
 

It’s just as true to say everything is real as saying everything is imaginary. Both miss the point. “Everything is ______” is better. “_________ is _________” is even better than that.
 

More importantly is just ___________. 
 

This spaghetti monster question is mostly mental masturbation which is fine if that’s what you want for yourself, but I imagine you want more than that, at least I would hope. It’s not even that it’s a “bad” question. It’s just that this line of inquiry is far less reliable for getting you to the understanding of Reality than many others. 

[Nahm]

On 11/22/2021 at 9:03 PM, Federico del pueblo said:

What I mean is: if everything is imaginary and just mind stuff or consciousness, how could we still argue that the e.g. New York City is something that does exist in a sense, whilst the flying spaghetti monster is just nonsense. 

How can imaginary things like NYC be distinguished from other imaginary things like the flying spaghetti monster?

I mean, one can fly to NYC and actually touch the brooklyin bridge and so on, whilst the flying spaghetti monster could never be more than some vague image in your mind.

Do we need two different categories like "imaginary" and "imaginary imaginary"?

I'm struggling to understand if distinctions between "real/truthful" and "completely nonsensical" actually still can or should be made or are valid.

If everything is imaginary, wouldn’t the answer be all of that is included in everything?