Thoughts and insights

[Jannes]

My place for philosophical thoughts and spiritual insights. 

[Jannes]

15mg 4HO-Met 30.12.2022

It feels so good to suffer, because suffering means to manifest, to manifest means to be, to be means to live.
Suffering is safeness. 

Sometimes I ask myself, am I a good person? What makes me a good person? Another time I ask myself „What if I am just a bad person? And another time I ask myself „Am I an actor/ a philosopher/.. ? I am always asking myself these questions. The reason why that is is because there actually isn’t anything real behind the identity. If I ever grasped anything real then it would stick. But it isn’t real and therefore I have to invent myself constantly. I am no particular one, I am the one who imagines new identities out of thin air and even being the one who imagines identities is an imagination from "me“. Nice light brainfuck.  

We love to demonize god for his creation. That everything is just imagination and not "real“ is so outrageous. 
God: The floor that you see there, that’s my imagination. 
(Me (God): No! (indigidant and stunned)
God: The wall that you are seeing there, .. yeah that’s also part of my imagination. 
Me (God): No it can’t!! (outraged and murderous)
God: And the lamp you are seeing there..
(Can’t wait to rub salt into my wounds)
Me (God): No don’t you dare!! (Full of hate with a baseball bat in the hand)
God: .. that’s also part of my imagination.
(enjoys being a shameless asshole)
Me (God): You bastard!! (Breaks baseball bat in two)

 

„Gott der alte Sack hat sich das alles aus Spaß ausgedacht.“

Edited December 31, 2022 by Jannes

[Jannes]

FREE WILL = NO-FREE WILL (Absolute):

 

Der Pessimist sagt er hat überhaupt keinen freien Willen. Er ist der Meinung, dass die Umwelt ihn (das Subjekt) in jeglicher Hinsicht lenkt. Er kann dies bis aufs kleinste Detail zurückverfolgen, sodass selbst “Sieh her, ich will meine Hand heben, ich habe meine Hand gehoben, tadaa der freie Wille existiert.“ sich als Folge einer langen Kette ungewollter Tatsachen entpuppt. 

Der Optimist sagt, er hat freien Willen über Alles, denn er hat die absolute Authorität wie er auf alles reagiert. Was immer er sagt ist wahr, er ist schließlich die absolute Authoritätsgewalt. Wenn er sagt, er habe keinen freien Willen und er würde von der Unwelt gelenkt werden, dann stimmt das, aber nur weil er es gesagt hat, sodass er immer noch die absolute Gewalt über alles hat. 

Beide haben ābsolut Recht, denn beide sagen ābsolut dasselbe.
Die Dualität zwischen Umwelt und Subjekt ist eine Illusion, denn Subjekt impliziert Umwelt und Umwelt impliziert Subjekt. Wenn das Subjekt bis zum Ende gedacht wird schließt es die Umwelt ein. Wenn die Umwelt bis zum Ende gedacht wird schließt es das Subjekt ein.

[Jannes]

A part part of the universe is essentiell for the rest of the universe 

 

So wie das Wasser die Erde formt und die Erde das Wasser formt, ist alles in der Welt im Grunde EIN Prozess. Die Bäume haben den Hals der Giraffe geformt, die Löwen die Muskeln und Hörner der Bullen. Der eisige Wind das dicke Fell des Wolfes, die heiße Sonne die ledrige Haut des Salamanders, die Pflanze den Pflanzenfresser, der Pflanzenfresser den Fleischfresser, 
Wie kann eins unabhängig vom anderen betrachtet werden ? Ein Löwe ist kein Löwe ohne Antilopen oder Zebras die er reißt und ohne Savanne über die er läuft und ohne…
Der Löwe ist also nicht nur ein Löwe, also ein Löwe ist nicht nur all das hinter der Trennlinie zwischen Fell und Außenwelt, sondern ein essentielles Rad für das restliche Universum. Das Universum würde nicht ohne Löwe existieren und der Löwe nicht ohne das Universum.  

[Jannes]

What are thoughts?

Thoughts happen in language. Language is a symbolic abstraction of reality. The word mouse represents the actual mouse although there is nothing in common with the word and the actual thing. Without the representation of reality words would just be Lutes without meaning. 
So when we think in language, what happens is not that language is the core of our thinking process, because language is just Lutes. We connect thinking and language so strongly that we can’t disconnect them anymore. It baffles us how a person that can’t hear sounds and therefore could never build a vocabulary can even think, but they can. 
So when we think in language, our thoughts are not just symbolic chains, they are rather "representations-of-reality-chains.“
Thoughts are consciousness about consciousness, structured, organized and easily made accessible through symbols. 

And sometimes words, being very limited are not the right medium for thoughts. An artistic picture or music is also a thought. The artist of an artwork that deeply resonates with many people is a deep thinker. 
 

Interesting to note. Truth is also consciousness and not language. By that I mean that truth does not have reality in a logical language chain "… q.e.d.“ but it is a state of consciousness. A logical argumentation is also only a lute and only gets it realness through consciousness.

Edited January 1, 2023 by Jannes

[Jannes]

Some things only make sense from a higher state of consciousness.

Sober:
The thought that something exists outside of consciousness is a thought. Even though that is the case, the thought could still point to something true even though this is also just a thought. 

On Psychedelics:
The thought that something exists outside of consciousness is a thought. And the thought that this thought points to something true is also really just a thought. 

The difference is that soberly I wasn’t completely conscious of the fact that my thought was just a thought and therefore gave it another meaning.

[Jannes]

How are imaginations connected with our experience of reality?

Our thoughts about reality shape our experience. For example I think that there is a physical earth that I am living on. When I walk down the streets I have the feeling that I am walking on this big physical matter. But in my direct experience I only see colours and shapes of the street. I can’t know that there is something behind (below) that wall of perception. So when I become conscious of that it somehow feels different to walk on the streets, like I am walking on clouds or something. 
Another example is the thought that thoughts come from our brain. There is no evidence to suggest that. And when we become conscious of that enough, we actually loose the feeling that thoughts come from the brain.
So even though thoughts can’t directly shape the more sturdy parts of our experience, for example the yellowness of a flower or the roundness of a balloon, thoughts can still have a massive effect on how the more sturdy things are contextualized. 

Edited January 1, 2023 by Jannes

[Jannes]

What the fuck is consciousness?

Given that everything in my direct experience is consciousness I can take any object and ask myself what it is not as anything particular but in a meta sense as something like everything else. Like analyzing a drop of water of the ozean to understand to ozean. 
So what is a banana? 
A banana is experiences which in this case manifest as a particular color, smell, shape, ..
It’s important to note that the banana in reality is not yellow but yellowness, not sweet but sweetness, not long but longness, … 
Consciousness doesnt make statements about itself because consciousness is only experience. In reality even a statement is not a statement. The realness of a statement is the "statementness“. So the experience part of the statement. 
So consciousness is not "this or that“, it’s "this- or that-ness“. And "this- or that-ness“ can’t be put into words, it has to be experienced. So you can’t say what consciousness is, the only thing you can do is to be conscious of consciousness. 

[Jannes]

How can you know that you want this and that right know and that this will make you happy? The only way to know if you want it is to have it because you can only experience it if you have it. But because you don’t have it, it’s impossible to know if you want it.  

[Jannes]

Death is a concept

Why do you think death is real? You say it’s obvious, we see people, animals and plants dying all the time so of course death is real. But death isn’t a body falling dead it’s the actual experience and the experience death is not a fact. The philosophical mind body problem would need to be solved for that. 
When I was a child the topic of introducing the concept of death wasn’t easy for my parents. My younger 3 year old sister at the time found a dead mouse once and my parents chatted about how this must have probably opened her to the possibility that death is a fact. That’s how death gets introduced. We see other dead creatures and wonder what we will experience if we ever fall dead. So death is a concept that we learn. Death is not an a priori fact about life. When we question our assumptions about death we learn that they are actually just assumptions and not reality. What death literally is for me is a combination of „lonely, cold, fear, dismal, oppressive, a bit of agoraphobia, uncomfortable, cold wind breathing through a terrible cave, heavy metal music, ..“. That’s what death literally is. These beliefs are of course laughable. We don’t think that this is what we mean when we talk about death but because we hold these beliefs unconscious and because these beliefs are so terrible that we don’t dare to make them conscious death seems super real for our entire life. 

[Jannes]

That’s not how I want to end up. It was the point when I said to myself "fuck philosophy, it won’t do shit for my experience of life anyway“. Saying I am not afraid of death because it doesn’t make sense to be afraid of it doesn’t work at all. You either become conscious about what death is and therefore loose your fear about it or you don’t and your fucked and you can’t do anything about it.

 

 

 

Edited January 8, 2023 by Jannes

[Jannes]

An ethical alternative experiment to veganism but why it unfortunately didnt  work for me:

I was an ethical vegan for 3 years. At some point I became really annoyed that it’s harder to socialize as a vegan and looked for solutions. I became conscious that I overvalued veganism to much and judged people based on their diet to much. In my mind some people were just "bad“ because they ate a lot of meat but that’s of course not all there is to a person. You can do a lot of good things in the world which can make up for bad things like eating meat. The solution I came up with was doing something good every time I purchased an animal based product. (I am still vegetarian) I started to introduce quark as my first animal based product. For every quark I bought I spent what I thought was an aquivalent amount of money on something good (charity) to balance the damage I dealt. It was 0,70€ for a quark which cost 0,79€. I calculated the amount of milk needed to create a quark and could calculate how much I would need to spent on milk and cheese as an aquivalent. I also introduced eggs and estimated the free range organic ones to cause little suffering. 
When I started this I felt bad at the beginning to purchase animal based products at all which is why it was relatively easy for me to spent the money to charity but as time went on I stopped feeling bad about it (and also got annoyed by the extra thinking work I had to do) and therefore got annoyed by the amount of money I had to spent extra. So at some point I stopped doing it.

If products were sold who are marked with an integrated extra price which helps charity for example this could actually work. 

[Jannes]

4 hours ago, Jannes said:

When I started this I felt bad at the beginning to purchase animal based products at all which is why it was relatively easy for me to spent the money to charity but as time went on I stopped feeling bad about it

Our mind always tries to make us feel good about ourselves all the time. I know exactly that eating animal products isn’t good but because I am doing it my mind finds ways to justify my behaviour. If I can fool myself with little things like that then I probably fool myself with all other things as well. It’s reasonable to assume that I am one hell of a self justifying piece of shit. 

Edited January 8, 2023 by Jannes

[Jannes]

Whatever I believe is true:

Whatever I believe is true. If I believe that I need someone elses opinion then that is true not because I need someone elses opinion but because I said I need someone elses opinion. If I believe that I am ugly then that is true not because I am objectively ugly but because I said that I am ugly. If I say that not everything that I believe is true then that untruth is true because I said so.

So if I could in theory believe whatever I want why don’t I do it? Why don’t I make myself believe the best thing possible? Do I want to limit myself?! Well maybe I don’t actually now what the best thing possible is. Or I already believe in the best thing possible and me thinking that I am not the best thing possible is part of being the best thing possible. Well that’s speculation that needs to be put under the test. 

[Jannes]

How omniscients could be possible:

We often say that deep down we have a core. That there is a core deep in us that is really really authentically us. 
I don’t believe that this is the case. There are many outer layers of ourself that we obviously see as outwards conditioning and not our core. For example if I travel to a new place and after some time dress the same way as the people I surround myself with, then we say that this is not really us. But even the deeper levels aren’t really us either. Let’s take the same clothing example. If let’s say I move to a new place, find new people who have different clothes then me and I don’t change my style that doesn’t mean that this is me, because what I keep wearing is also something I was conditioned to wear at some point in my early life. It’s just a deeper level of conditioning and not a new quality. 
We are in a sense like an onion. An onion has many layers but no core. 

The potential fact that we don’t have a core would bring many implications. It would connect us existentially because it is the core that keeps us separated. It also means that we could potentially become omniscient because we could switch our coat of conditioning to manifest and therefore understand every object. 

[Jannes]

Verdrehung der Realität:

„Du verdrehst ja die Realität“ sagen Menschen manchmal. Dabei war die Realität davor nie gerade. Es ist immer ein hin und herbiegen, es ist Auslegungssache. Und keine Interpretation ist objektiv besser als die andere, denn das wäre ebenfalls eine Auslegung. 
Könnte es aber relativ, also aus unseren persönlichen Ausrichtung bessere und schlechtere Ausrichtungen geben? 
Den meisten Ausrichtungen zu Folge sind kriminelle Aktivitäten schlecht. Es gibt aber auch Ausrichtungen die kriminelle Aktivitäten rechtfertigen würden. Alles was passiert ist von einer Ausrichtung gerechtfertigt. Obwohl absolut alles relativ ist, kann man sagen, dass manche Ausrichtungen mehr befürwortet werden als andere. Das was gerade befürwortet wird ist die Realität. 
Die Frage stellt sich dann natürlich, wie entsteht eine Auslegung? Eine Auslegung ist fest mit der eigenen Identität verknüpft, soviel kann man beobachten. Wenn ich beispielsweise glaube ein Mensch zu sein, dessen Ziel es ist zu reproduzieren, dann werde ich junge, "attraktive“ Frauen über anderen Frauen oder Tieren bevorzugen. Das auf einem ganz elementaren Level. Natürlich ist die Identität bei den meisten Menschen viel komplexer ausgeprägt und damit auch die Verbiegung der Realität. Wenn das der Fall ist, welche Ausrichtungen bzw. welche Identitäten sind wahrheitsgetreuer als andere? Da jegliche Identität ein hin und herbiegen bedeutet, heißt keine Identität auch kein hin und herbiegen und somit Wahrheit. Je mehr Identität also, desto mehr wird die Realität gebogen, also so weiter ist man von der Wahrheit weg und so weniger Identität desto dichter ist man an der Wahrheit. 

[Jannes]

objectivity vs absolute truth: 

Many people confuse these two. 
Objectivity is group thinking or in other words the common denominator which isn’t truth at all and absolute truth is actually truth. We all have our relative truths. When we say there is a tree and that tree is green and large we assume that this is absolute truth because other people see it as well. But it is actually objectively true because while other humans might see something similar, a dog or an alien might see different colours. And an ant or an elefant might not think the tree is way smaller or way larger. We chat with other humans all the time and forget that we all have the same biases to the point that we think that the universe has the same biases as us which it doenst have but also does have. It doesn’t have it because our perspective isn’t more important then other perspectives but it also has the same bias as us because we are part of the universe but that’s not what all the universe is. Absolute truth however is absolutely true. Direct experience is absolute truth because it can’t be doubted. You can’t doubt what is already happening. 

[Jannes]

On 31.12.2022 at 4:07 PM, Jannes said:

Interesting to note. Truth is also consciousness and not language. By that I mean that truth does not have reality in a logical language chain "… q.e.d.“ but it is a state of consciousness. A logical argumentation is also only a lute and only gets it realness through consciousness.

An experience in which absolute truth is experienced is therefore a possibility.

The experience truth is primary, a logical conclusion to it is secondary. 
 

[Jannes]

How our ego intentions manage to appear to have power: 

Our ego intentions are working in a strange loopey way. For example if I want to be happy, that implies that I am not and that gets me exactly where I was before. But this principle is absolute. A fools interpretation could be „So I understand this principle and therefore I don’t try to try to be happy“ but this trying to not trying it still trying. Another example is desire. If I don’t want to desire that implies that I desire not to desire which means that I still desire so nothing fundamentally changes. 

So you only get this principle by really not getting it. "I get that I have to not get it“ is still trying to get it. You have no control in this matter at all. You don’t even have control to let go off control. So fundamentally you have to loose your mind. 

So if my force of will which only appears to have power but is actually trapped in a strange loop this bares the question then how does anything happen at all?
This misunderstanding comes from our ego. Where could my intentions come from if not from me the ego asks. But even the ego intentions are a part of the whole, of what is going on naturally because the ego doenst exist as a separate entity, its just part of everything. The illusion that there is a difference that is the ego. And believing that intentions don’t occur naturally but from a different source then is my ego is also part of what is going on naturally.
Fundamentally everything seems to arise from a mysterious source that we actively try not to see. By "we“ I of course also talk about the mysterious source. Intentions are a part of that hiding process because they give the illusion that it is us who has control in this world.

My summary is the following:

If something happens and even if it was my intention that it was happening it actually didn’t happen because of my intention, it happened naturally and my intention of it happening through me is just an illusion. 

[Jannes]

There are no general things:

There are no "general“ things in the world everything is specific. There are no general faces, no general fruits, no general music, no general macronutrients. What does the general macronutrient fat look like? We have a general idea, but there is no general item. Is it olive oil, avocado oil, or maybe butter? Even as filtered as this there are still specific differences. And even if there were a "general fat“ then that would still be a specific item because it is different from other specific items because of its averageness. Also we couldn’t talk about the "general fat“ as a representation for specific fats because the "general fat" wouldnt be fully representative to the specific fats because of the difference between general fat and specific fat.