are you sure there's nothing behind the scenes?

[Holygrail]

cant we also be generating atoms and quarks instantly from consciousness, still existing underneath the surface of things? (although knowing that atoms are also made out of consciousness)

 

 

[Breakingthewall]

maybe if you keep dividing the particles, you get to a point where they're made of nothing. they are only the relationship of something with another thing, without this relationship, they do not exist, so you could say that they are just an idea

[A Fellow Lighter]

Depends on what you mean by “nothing”. What I've come to learn is that the substance of all matter is vibration. And that every state of consciousness (stable or dreamlike) is stationed by a vibration's frequency. The weaker the frequency, the more dissipative and fleeting everything in reality is; the stronger the frequency, the more steady and stable everything is.

Now you could say that the vibration is nothing because you awoke to its infinitude - that is the multidimensional nature of vibration. Otherwise to say that beneath creation is nothing would be to negate much needed for you to awaken to. It is only no-thing because it is without finitude - vibration is infinite and whole, from every point of observance.

[GreenWoods]

5 hours ago, Holygrail said:

cant we also be generating atoms and quarks instantly from consciousness, still existing underneath the surface of things? (although knowing that atoms are also made out of consciousness)

When atoms are made of consciousness, then they are within your consciousness, because you ARE Consciousness haha.

Edited March 14, 2022 by GreenWoods

[Reciprocality]

Since 1. everything is unified and 2. your are something particular there must be something behind the scenes, but because every unification is subject to reason we can only speak of and think of the scenery.

The something which is behind the scenes must be no different than your essential being, and therefore be unspeakable.

 

The reason it must be the same as you is because imagination does not have the authority to designate possibility, so even the thought that something can be different than you (as mere consciousness) is inherently absurd though perfectly possible as speculation and inherent to survival.

[Carl-Richard]

"Behind the scenes" is a conceptual construct happening live on the scene.

[Reciprocality]

@Carl-Richard Everything that is spoken is a construct.

Some such constructs refers to an intuition that is not, we refer for instance to the past as something which is different to the definition we use by the word past. If we could not do this we could not do anything.

 

That which is behind the scenes is an undeadly intuition that is precisely the opposite of a conceptual construction as for instance its definition. 

Why on earth would you reduce the intuition of for example space into the definition you create because of it? For that is no different to reducing the intuition of something behind the scenes into the ideas we represent it with.

[Inliytened1]

16 hours ago, Holygrail said:

cant we also be generating atoms and quarks instantly from consciousness, still existing underneath the surface of things? (although knowing that atoms are also made out of consciousness)

 

 

Because there cannot be anything outside your Consciousness.  Consciousness is Infinity.   You are Consciousness.  You are Infinity.   There cannot be anything outside of you.  Something behind the scenes is you subtlety creating tbe construct that there is some :other place somewhere separate from you.  But this something your mind is imagining or creating. 

[Carl-Richard]

30 minutes ago, Reciprocality said:

Why on earth would you reduce the intuition of for example space into the definition you create because of it? For that is no different to reducing the intuition of something behind the scenes into the ideas we represent it with.

I didn't do that. The intuition of something behind the scenes is an inference based on a certain regularity of what is happening live on the scenes. Making inferences is one type of conceptual scheme, but communication is another. Communicating the primacy of experience (a non-inference) doesn't make it equal to an inference by the mere fact of communicating it.

[Reciprocality]

8 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

I didn't do that. The intuition of something behind the scenes is an inference based on a certain regularity of what is happening live on the scenes. Making inferences is one type of conceptual scheme, but communication is another. Communicating an inference doesn't make it equal to the primacy of experience (a non-inference) by the mere fact of communicating it.

@Carl-Richard This is a Humean fallacy, while it is true that there exists inferences with regard to the particular things this intuition of something behind the scenes consists of, it is not an inference that there is such a thing as something behind the scenes.

To think that reduces it to induction, but induction regards only the content and not the structure content necessarily connects to. 

 

Edited March 14, 2022 by Reciprocality

[Carl-Richard]

4 minutes ago, Reciprocality said:

@Carl-Richard This is a Humean fallacy, while it is true that there exists inferences with regard to the particular things this intuition of something behind the scenes consists of, it is not an inference that there is such a thing as something behind the scenes.

To think that reduces it to induction, but induction regards only the content and not the structure content necessarily connects to. 

I don't understand why that distinction matters. If you're posing say the existence of something particular like matter, something which is indeed purely abstract with no qualities and is inaccessible to experience, are you not by definition posing the existence of something abstract and inaccessible to experience i.e. something behind the scenes?

[Reciprocality]

@Carl-Richard If you have not accessed particles in experience then obviously they are purely abstract, and even though they are posed as being behind the scenes in such a case it says absolutely nothing about what actually is behind the scenes.

To believe that would be rationalistic materialism, but what you pose is a naive skepticism in which the very intuition of something is made up of the particulars anyone places under it as a class or set.

The distinction matters a lot, may I ask if space is also made out inductively from experience? Time aswell? Because when I speak of "behind the scenes" I reference only the very idea we all have about there being such a thing, which we all posses with an accidental relationship to what we think of this behind the scene being composed of. 

It matters because conceptual constructions are a part of our schema and our personality, but these intuitions are the same for us all.

[Reciprocality]

You may ask how I know they are the same for us all, to which the response require no more evidence that the mere fact that we can point to for instance "space".

[Carl-Richard]

1 minute ago, Reciprocality said:

You may ask how I know they are the same for us all, to which the response require no more evidence that the mere fact that we can point to for instance "space".

Space and time are also inferences.

[Reciprocality]

1 minute ago, Carl-Richard said:

Space and time are also inferences.

Haha love it

[Carl-Richard]

2 minutes ago, Reciprocality said:

Haha love it

Meditation bro ;D

[Reciprocality]

@Carl-Richard Meditation my friend, teaches you the opposite. 

[Reciprocality]

@Carl-Richard Not to be obsessive here (I am a little bit about these matters) but I also spotted an internal inconsistency, which is fine. These are words, and they can trick us all.

When you said that "I didn't do that." responding to my assertion that you reduced space into the definition which reports it you are at odds with your final conclusion above in 'space being inferred', as the only way space can be inferred is as the mere word which represents it.

[Carl-Richard]

2 hours ago, Reciprocality said:

@Carl-Richard Not to be obsessive here (I am a little bit about these matters) but I also spotted an internal inconsistency, which is fine. These are words, and they can trick us all.

When you said that "I didn't do that." responding to my assertion that you reduced space into the definition which reports it you are at odds with your final conclusion above in 'space being inferred', as the only way space can be inferred is as the mere word which represents it.

I knew you might say that. I'm saying that is also not the case. It's in the same ballpark as inferring the existence of matter, but it's just a much trickier inference to spot because one makes it so often. Most people don't have a good reference point to notice this. One such reference point is a state of samadhi (void) where body and mind dissolves (sensory phenomena and thought activity ceases), and not coincidentally, space and time also dissolves, something which I've verified in my experience. Space and time only makes sense when you experience a body that feels and a mind that thinks.

[Reciprocality]

@Carl-Richard  You have flipped everything on its head, it is wrongly inferred by us humans that space is physical. This is an induction from the experience of touch, as to say we assign space with an inherent quality of touchness if you like.  We called it originally physical that which can be touched, in addition to this we have wrongly assigned space with many other qualities as for instance particles. 

All such inferences whether from experience or from pure abstraction I will readily give you credit in calling constructed conceptions. These are subject to a necessary unity in which they may be placed, space is not composed of them just like consciousness is not composed of the things which appears in it. (as consciousness is also when there is nothing appearing in it)

Consequently if space were an inference from the aforementioned concepts, and in turn those concepts were also purely inferred then you have committed yourself to a house of cards which falls under the smallest scrutiny, or without. What you are left with is pure mysticism in which everything unfolds by will and random. As in denying everything which has to do with anything else, or what is worse special pleading in which you play at your own accord a game where whatever you wants to be connected is and whatever does not fit your mood does not.

As I alluded to you have got stuck in language, you can not make certain crucial distinctions. I assume it has to do with a certain idea spreading like wildfire which states that everything is imaginary, I hate to ruin it but imagination is wholly contingent on the intuition of space. And our every second proves it both to me and to you. Question is what could make someone deny it? (in truth not even that is actually possible, which is why it is a language trick by you) So far as we play the game and allow everything to be imaginary we prove by means of the very playground that it is not. 

Our egos are imagined, our lives are imagined, our words are imaginary, meaning is imaginary but sensibility and consciousness is actual. And that it is actual seems like an inference, but it only seems that way when you have attributed language with the authority you have not taken responsibility for yourself.

Edited March 14, 2022 by Reciprocality