Contrasts are equal

[RMQualtrough]

The contrast between red and blue is the same as the contrast between red and the sound of music. Sight and sound etc are categories without actuality, the mind is what makes the categorization.

All happening is singular. Hearing a piano while looking at the Eiffel tower, both the sight and sound form one singular happening, such that if you hear the same sound looking a few degrees to the left of where you were previously looking, the entire object has differentiated from the prior iteration even though the sound is identical, as sound is just one aspect of an indistinguished single happening, which is only cut up into distinction of sight and sound and similarity by the mind.

The sound does not stand alone independently from the whole. So you cannot say the sound hasn't changed when you look a few degrees left, without first dividing the happening into categories in the mind and recognizing patterns. Which you aren't doing consciously but as a lower level working of the brain like depth perception.

Similarly, mental and physical objects. No differentiation in actuality. Differentiation is added in post-processing. If you hum a tune in your head, that sound is as real from an absolute stance as the sound playing on a radio: The brain is called physical, thoughts are called mental. Both brains and thoughts are merely objects without categorization, one is not physical and the other mental, unless you are categorizing reality in a certain way, e.g. consensual reality against private reality. But that is a lens applied by the individual... A sound being imaged is as much out there in the world as the neurons causing it. And vice versa the neurons causing it is as much in here as the sound being imagined. There is no such thing as an in here and out there, neurons are simply more objects identical in substance to sound or the sight of red.

All together part of a singular whole which is infinity. Neither in nor out, in no place and no time. Neurons and colors are equally real and existent as NEITHER physical nor mental things, but as expressed aspects of infinity which are not in any place in NOR out, and are simply objects and more objects. Neither thing should be considered different in substance or more real or unreal than the other.

As such the contradiction between brains, neuroscience, Idealism, and materialism, is completely nil. There is zero contradiction. The brain can be completely tied to the sight of red without issue, see red and the brain lights up in a certain array. Stimulate the brain in a certain way and the subject sees red, this should not be surprising. It's all objects on a level playing field. You hit a snooker ball with another and it moves. Is that surprising? It's only surprising if you believe one ball is real and one is unreal and hence the two ought not to interact. If both balls occupy the same reality, their interaction is blatant and without any shock. If a brain and the seen color of red occupy the same precise locale, their unification is wholly unsurprising as they aren't in fact separated by imagined borders of real vs unreal.

All contrasts exist equally, real vs unreal, it makes no difference. Even one shade of red against another very slightly darker shade of red, the differentiation is identical to that of red and the feeling of burning your hand on the stove. Contrasts are there and of course red does not stop being what we term red when someone snorts some toad, but everything simply meshes into unity and recognized undifferentiation against the whole. Everything is infinity and no REAL contrast exists between anything, only the appearance of such. Unreal appearance and real contrast being, of course, singular and without difference: The illusion equal to the non-illusion in actuality. The contrast and finite nature of red beside blue as real as the total unity of the two as undifferentiated existence.

And that simultaneous appearance of contrast combined with the total lack of contrast (lack of contrast since everything is now just infinity, just as you may see leaves on a tree then just see all leaves as tree rather than leaves) is total infinity, as it contains both differentiation and singularity, everything and nothing, absolute and relative, true and false, love and hate, peace and fear, happiness and sadness, real and unreal, matter and mind.

Edited December 7, 2021 by RMQualtrough

[RMQualtrough]

Any insight to add?

I notice that on Salvia, depth actually ends. You can still move your hand and reach forward etc but you genuinely cannot see depth at all, just a flat 2D mass.

You do still see shape and color within that in a near incomprehensible way. But the depth is outright not perceptible at all full stop, so the contrast of far and near do not merely become recognized as equal, but it genuinely ceases to exist so you couldn't discern how far or near something is no matter how hard you tried. It's just a flat blob.

I do not know if similar can happen in other arenas.

[LastThursday]

18 hours ago, RMQualtrough said:

The contrast between red and blue is the same as the contrast between red and the sound of music.

Consciousness is all contrast, left is not right, blue is not red, high pitch is not low pitch. Consciousness is all similarity too, green is like red, low pitch is like high pitch, right is like left. The contrasts only sit within the things being contrasted, the contrasts themselves have no existence of their own. It's very tempting to say consciousness is only the infinite interplay between difference and sameness - in ever increasing complexity. In fact I will:

"Consciousness is just the infinite interplay between difference and sameness."

Sameness is a kind of echo of the non-dual nature of consciousness, difference is its creative spirit or prediliction to evolution. Consciousness evolves because it is groundless, contrasts are a pointer to its absolute relativity: it defines itself with reference to itself.