You see why there are no other people, don't you?

[OldManCorcoran]

It is only difficult to make sense of if there exists a belief in a witness to subjective phenomena (qualia: sights, sounds, smells, touch). If in fact there is not a witness to any phenomena, only the phenomena itself. This is where it is so easy and not complicated at all.

In a room full of people with music playing, if you are thinking that there is witness to the sound of the music, you might have the idea of 100 individuals hearing the heard music. Few people have issue with the concept of many individuals hearing one piece of music. This is easy for anyone to conceptualize, but it is the 100 individuals standing in opposition to that which is the conceptual difficulty... In that room, in actual fact, rather than there being multiple hearers of the singular music, there is only the heard music by itself without even one witness. There is the heard music and nothing else.

If absolutely all other perceptions were removed from everyone in that room, and only the music stayed, all individuals in that room are then literally the same person in that moment. There is then absolutely nobody else hearing that music, everyone is then you. Because there are in fact ultimately no people, and only the heard music.

If absolutely all perceptions in the entirety of existence were removed and only the music remained. The heard music is then the only thing in the whole of existence. Then there is absolute unity, because there is no longer differentiation. There is only one thing existent right then, which is the heard music itself. Without any witnesses to it.

After the fact, when perceptions like thoughts which constitute the ego arise, then every single ego will assign the hearing of that music to itself, as though it was an experience had by itself and belonging to itself within the timeline of the person it thinks itself to be. And each individual will believe that they had a personal experience of an event, when the event was actually just the appearance of that sound phenomena absolutely alone without any individuals or witnesses having been present for it.

It is not even possible to conceptualize a unity of observer and observed without some sort of idea of their individual nature in tact. Surely then, not a useful conceptualization at all. When there is no such thing at all as a viewer and viewed, absolutely nonexistent. When visual phenomena happens, the visual phenomena itself is the only thing present. Surely a clearer conceptual framework.

[axiom]

Yes, that's it! (more or less)

[MisterNobody]

@OldManCorcoran there is only one audience. there is only one qualia

[tuku747]

There are an Infinity of People. There is One, Contiguous, Infinity.

I Am All of Them. There is Infinite I AM. There is Infinite YOU.

There is Simply No Separation Between Us.

There is Only This Universe That We Are.

It's As Simple As Simple Can Be.

ONE.

With only ONE Thing, there is no other thing to limit it!

Therefore, ONE = Infinity!

We Are That!

Edited March 23, 2023 by tuku747

[OldManCorcoran]

19 minutes ago, MisterNobody said:

@OldManCorcoran there is only one audience. there is only one qualia

That's not the case though is it. There are many different appearances appearing. You mean one existence. Which is what appears as these various elements. Both qualitative elements as well as distant unobserved galaxies... The categorical divide between those things being an idea only in the mind, meaning a perception, meaning an appearance which is not applied to reality in absence of the mind.

Free flow between qualities and things without quality because none of these things are categorically different.

Studying consciousness is a weird thing to do in the way it is often done within scientific communities and whatever else, because it is tied to the idea that it has something to do with observing or something to do with perception. Which is not necessarily the case. Because there is nothing to being conscious of something other than verbalizing the presence of that appearing thing. There is nothing to being conscious of the color purple other than verbalizing the fact that purple is appearing.

Like that, when referring to consciousness, it is actually a reference to existence itself. Which exists in these various forms and also as things without any subjective form. Which is why studying it as a process of perception or of witnessing something is a bit weird.

[tuku747]

Remember, YOU invent the narrative. You Are God.

If You wanna talk Yourself into "I Am Infinitely Alone" I won't stop You.

The narrative I choose is "We Are Infinite Unity. We Are All God!"

For obvious, pro-social, reasons.

Edited March 23, 2023 by tuku747

[OldManCorcoran]

5 minutes ago, tuku747 said:

Remember, YOU invent the narrative. You Are God.

If You wanna talk Yourself into "I Am Infinitely Alone" I won't stop You.

The narrative I choose is "We Are Unity. We Are All ONE."

For obvious, pro-social, reasons.

Is it not easier to conceptualize unity without the presence of the witnesses? If your favorite piece of music appears, that piece of music appears. Not heard by anyone. So each time it appears it is absolutely identical irrespective of who is there hearing it. Whether you are dead or alive, when the music appears it appears just the same.

While you ride the bus, and somewhere in the world the music plays, the music exists just the same as you were there yourself. Because appearances appear by themselves without any of us being there.

That seems a very solid and unconfusing framework. In which there is no need to have whirlpools in rivers or any of the strange ideas necessitated by ideas of witnesses to phenomena, which you see related by Bernardo Kastrup. Surely those ideas are the result of someone wrestling to account for numerous observing entities within an alleged super witness. And the same with the unobserved world, which makes better sense in a different framework where there are not observers and observed phenomena, but simply phenomena itself, existence being that phenomena as it may also be unobserved atoms. No need then for consciousness to be something necessarily relating to a perception, even though it can freely be those things.

[tuku747]

8 minutes ago, OldManCorcoran said:

Is it not easier to conceptualize unity without the presence of the witnesses? If your favorite piece of music appears, that piece of music appears. Not heard by anyone. So each time it appears it is absolutely identical irrespective of who is there hearing it. Whether you are dead or alive, when the music appears it appears just the same.

While you ride the bus, and somewhere in the world the music plays, the music exists just the same as you were there yourself. Because appearances appear by themselves without any of us being there.

That seems a very solid and unconfusing framework. In which there is no need to have whirlpools in rivers or any of the strange ideas necessitated by ideas of witnesses to phenomena, which you see related by Bernardo Kastrup. Surely those ideas are the result of someone wrestling to account for numerous observing entities within an alleged super witness. And the same with the unobserved world, which makes better sense in a different framework where there are not observers and observed phenomena, but simply phenomena itself, existence being that phenomena as it may also be unobserved atoms. No need then for consciousness to be something necessarily relating to a perception, even though it can freely be those things.

To deny Your Own Presence is to be at war with Yourself.

My Identity is Reality. My Identity is Infinity.

Whatever it is, I Am There. I Am That.

I Am Both The Witness and  The Witnessed.

I Am Both. Always. I Am Everything.

You Exist. There is Only Existence.

Edited March 23, 2023 by tuku747

[OldManCorcoran]

3 minutes ago, tuku747 said:

To deny Your Own Presence is to be at war with Yourself.

My Identity is Reality. My Identity is Infinity.

Whatever it is, I Am There. I Am That.

I Am Both The Witness and  The Witnessed.

I Am Both. Always. I Am Everything.

You Exist. There is Only Existence.

Whatever appearances constitute my ego or my mind or my body are all present, and all unobserved. No denial of the fact of presence itself. Denial of the "my" only.

It is impossible to hold an idea of both a "witness" and a "witnessed" and unify them without still maintaining at least a loose idea of a separation between these two elements, which is shown by expressing the idea of being "both". It is a weakness in the conceptual framework. The phenomena is not made of two components, it is only the end result. Not something resulting from the marriage of two different parts.

If existence is to take the form of a piece of music, there is no need to take the shape of an observer and then also the shape of the music. It instead simply takes the form of just the hearing of the music itself. Straight line, direct. The hearing of the music exists and it is alone, rather than being made of two components.

The reference to consciousness is a reference to the fact of presence itself, not actually to anything necessarily tied to witnessing. This is what I mean that there is nothing to "being conscious of purple" other than verbalizing the presence of the color purple. To say we are conscious of it is to say it is present. Consciousness = beingness and nothing more.

Surely this is a more concise framework?

[tuku747]

25 minutes ago, OldManCorcoran said:

Whatever appearances constitute my ego or my mind or my body are all present, and all unobserved. No denial of the fact of presence itself. Denial of the "my" only.

It is impossible to hold an idea of both a "witness" and a "witnessed" and unify them without still maintaining at least a loose idea of a separation between these two elements, which is shown by expressing the idea of being "both". It is a weakness in the conceptual framework. The phenomena is not made of two components, it is only the end result. Not something resulting from the marriage of two different parts.

If existence is to take the form of a piece of music, there is no need to take the shape of an observer and then also the shape of the music. It instead simply takes the form of just the hearing of the music itself. Straight line, direct. The hearing of the music exists and it is alone, rather than being made of two components.

The reference to consciousness is a reference to the fact of presence itself, not actually to anything necessarily tied to witnessing. This is what I mean that there is nothing to "being conscious of purple" other than verbalizing the presence of the color purple. To say we are conscious of it is to say it is present. Consciousness = beingness and nothing more.

Surely this is a more concise framework?

To deny anything at all is to say "I Am Not That." You Are Maintaining Duality When You Resist Anything At All.

Simply cease to limit "What Is". There is no need to limit Yourself. Therefore, I approach from The All.

In Absolute Unity, there Only Is. There is no "Is Not".

Whatever It Is You're Speaking Of, You Can Be 100% Sure that Both Are The Same Universe and You Are That.

We're not going for conceptualization or holding ideas. We're going beyond mind to Being, Which We Already Are.

When I say I Am Both, I Am Affirming That It Is All One, it is All What I Am.

There's nothing more to talk about.

Edited March 23, 2023 by tuku747

[OldManCorcoran]

8 minutes ago, tuku747 said:

We're not going for conceptualization or holding ideas. We're going beyond mind to Being, Which We Already Are.

But you are an idea yourself aren't you.

Of course there is the presence of the thoughts which constitute the idea that there is a witness. That's the being you are mentioning. Nowhere in that is there a witness to the thought. The thinking is present of course.

Ideas of witnessing entities make it impossible to explain basic elements of life and death. See Vedantic teachers struggle to explain basic things like deep sleep and death, which are concise and easy to comprehend and describe without the insertion of an observer. It just doesn't work because the observer described is not there.

[tuku747]

7 minutes ago, OldManCorcoran said:

But you are an idea yourself aren't you.

Of course there is the presence of the thoughts which constitute the idea that there is a witness. That's the being you are mentioning. Nowhere in that is there a witness to the thought. The thinking is present of course.

Ideas of witnessing entities make it impossible to explain basic elements of life and death. See Vedantic teachers struggle to explain basic things like deep sleep and death, which are concise and easy to comprehend and describe without the insertion of an observer. It just doesn't work because the observer described is not there.

That's fine, but this is nothing but a (pretty amusing) word game at this point.

Seriously You could even say the words "Being" and "Witness" mean the same thing.

Thoughts Are Light. Thoughts Witness Themselves Because They Curve Back on Themselves.

We Are The One Original Thought that Can See Itself From The Inside and Out.

Edited March 23, 2023 by tuku747

[tuku747]

 

[OldManCorcoran]

1 minute ago, tuku747 said:

That's fine, but this is nothing but a (pretty amusing) word game at this point.

Seriously You could even say the words "Being" and "Witness" mean the same thing.

Thoughts Witness Themselves Because They Curve Back on Themselves.

We Are The One Original Thought that Can See Itself From The Inside and Out.

They do mean the same. That's what I mean, words like consciousness refer directly to the fact of being. Which is not necessarily related to perceptions. But when we say we witness purple, it is nothing other than the verbalization of the presence of purple. Not a witnessing of purple but the beingness of the purple itself.

Like this, a thought doesn't have to curve back onto itself. The thought itself exists. An idea of a thought curving back on itself is a remnant of the thought that there are two elements necessarily existent within an appearing phenomena, so the idea there is an observer and the thought which is observed. But, surely easier to simply accept the presence of the thought? Not any need for any other elements to the thought except for the presence of the appearance of the thought.

Which might be what you mean anyway.

[WelcometoReality]

9 minutes ago, tuku747 said:

 

Cool video. Thx for sharing.

[tuku747]

19 minutes ago, OldManCorcoran said:

Which might be what you mean anyway.

On forums such as this, and in general, this is generally the best assumption. We Already Agree.

[axiom]

@OldManCorcoran The clarity with which you express this is great. This understanding is vanishingly rare.

Almost every apparent person here is hooked on the ‘I’ and cannot let go. Fear of dying. 

Really good.

[Breakingthewall]

11 hours ago, OldManCorcoran said:

They do mean the same. That's what I mean, words like consciousness refer directly to the fact of being. Which is not necessarily related to perceptions. But when we say we witness purple, it is nothing other than the verbalization of the presence of purple. Not a witnessing of purple but the beingness of the purple itself.

Like this, a thought doesn't have to curve back onto itself. The thought itself exists. An idea of a thought curving back on itself is a remnant of the thought that there are two elements necessarily existent within an appearing phenomena, so the idea there is an observer and the thought which is observed. But, surely easier to simply accept the presence of the thought? Not any need for any other elements to the thought except for the presence of the appearance of the thought.

Which might be what you mean anyway.

what you are saying is that only direct experience exists and that the self is a part of that direct experience, not the perceiver of it. that's how it is. you are the experience that is occurring, within which there is an apparent you that is the center of it

[MisterNobody]

@OldManCorcoran Interesting. It's true that naming Yourself/ God/ Everything as Consciousness implies that there is also something the Consciousness is being conscious of. "Conscious"-ness is a bad term to describe IT, because it implies duality. Awareness is also bad. 

The whole "you are not your thoughts, you are the witness behind the thoughts" is bullshit. YOU ARE YOUR THOUGHTS lol

 

[MisterNobody]

17 hours ago, MisterNobody said:

@OldManCorcoran there is only one audience. there is only one qualia

when I said this, I was referring to the idea of Advanced Solipsism, which states that you are the only conscious experience, all other people are deterministic natural robots, there is no God inside of them, they do not hear, feel, see etc. they have no qualia