There will always be something

[Reciprocality]

We can all use logic to figure out that there will always be something as opposed to nothing, but it can also be directly experienced.

The best way I could describe this experience is that I realise this particular consciousness is one of an never ending array of other ones, it is that array of beings which is infinite, but we all share something identical in common and it is this identical thing we tap into when the ego suddenly is afraid it might die soon if you continue to focus on it.

I am scared shitless when it happens, I don't dare to delve into it, I have tried the mirror staring meditation technique and as soon as i realise that existence will take on an infinite number of different manifestation the iris expands too, I find that interesting, anyone else noticed something similar or reflected on the same meaning of "the infinite"?

[tlowedajuicemayne]

My friend, you are lost in thought. 

[Reciprocality]

@tlowedajuicemayne Of course I am lost in thought, they create narratives, these narratives then becomes what the ego is attached to and is afraid of losing in the experienced I referenced.

Don´t we agree to this? And if so then why would you point out the obvious instead of investigating the questions sprung out of it?

Edited June 21, 2023 by Reciprocality

[Reciprocality]

Only in the intellect of god could this particular world of ours be other than necessary, which if you are familiar with scepticism makes their philosophy rather meagre.

If the skeptic denies the necessity of our world he must accept god, and if he denies god he must accept the worlds necessary existence.

If by world we speak the globe then randomness must be introduced as a rejected ontological concept, while if we speak of the universe in its initial beginning no randomness becomes relevant.

 

The reason our world is necessary if there is no god is that the opposed concept to its necessity is its possibility, but since its possibility is a concept that is actually contingent on its already given existence, and this concept is created out of the human affinity for negation, and the human affinity for negation is contingent on the thing to be negated, as logic could never be the foundation for itself, except for in the mind of god where everything becomes possible, therefore is the world necessary in its absence.

The much better version: The concept of the worlds possibility is an insufficient condition for the world except for in the mind of god, and so since if the world is not possible it becomes necessary so therefore is it necessary in the absence of the god on whose power only it could be contingent.

[Reciprocality]

All I just said ^ is the cosmological version of the ontological first statement in the thread "there will always be something".

Neither our world (cosmological) nor any possible world (ontological) are contingent unless they are intended, the latter is necessary through either 1. direct experience (suddenly in my case) or logically (by reference to experiences as negating the logical condition of a pure absence/nothingness).

But is it as necessary that if the world were contingent it should be intended, as it is contingent if it were intended? 

Can we argue that our world is itself necessary? Can we extend the ontological argument into the cosmological? We really have no other alternative than god vs necessity in relation to its peculiarity/identity, so which is it? 

 

Everything Im saying here sounds fancy and philosophical, but it really isn't, it desire is as simplistic as what humans have been doing for hundred of thousands of years, it only is in addition self aware of where it derives its god-concept. It does not treat god as a question until it knows what it wishes to ask through it, it does not ask it until it knows why. It leaves nothing open except for whether there is intention and therefrom the possibility of higher purpose to our existence.

[tlowedajuicemayne]

I'm not doubting what you experienced but given what you've tried to explain above its clear that whatever the experience was, was not very deep and has left you in a deep state of confusion and incoherence.

If however, it was in fact a deep experience then you haven't fully understood to the point where you can convey what you mean in a clear and concise way. This could be because you aren't educated enough to, or that you simply don't want to, or maybe you even think that speaking the way you do is some kind of awakened speak which normies can't grasp and you enjoy that, idk. Whatever the case, I suggest you take the time out to really contemplate your experiences and take the time to learn to convey it clearly and concisely with words if you want to express it to others in that way. Of course you don't have to if you don't want to but if you dont, you will go on feeling misunderstood and ostracized by those who you express these experiences to and that's no fun. Trust me. 

 

I spent many years doing the zen master speak and it did nothing but isolate me from the world. Once I stopped with that game and spent the time to learn how to properly express my experiences, then and only then could conversations occur about them. People who normally weren't interested in my psychedelic experiences for instance began asking questions and thinking about these things for themselves. Not because I laid on some incoherent zen master philosophy on them but because I understood my experience so thoroughly that I could express it with words anybody could understand. 

It changed everything for me and I think it will for you too. Cheers 

[Reciprocality]

@tlowedajuicemayne Isn't it interesting how your speculations could crumble on account of nothing more than 1. you realising what my question meant and 2. that this question were led on by the experience i referenced? This experience being what we often refer to as "infinity".

You say thing like "given what you tried to explain above then therefore x" without actually referencing neither attempts at explaining something nor interpretations of these thereby empty attempts. It is actually these kinds of things, where instead of referencing details you reference a mere feeling, where we are left in "a deep state of confusion".

 

It is of course very possible that the reason nobody responded to my post were that I were so confused about my experience that nothing but incoherence came out of it, yet this possibility were left entirely untouched by the precise comment which open for it, by instead of engaging supposed incoherences you do as humans have done for half a million years: make nothing but stories, myths and narratives.

 

"If however, it was in fact a deep experience then you haven't fully understood to the point where you can convey what you mean in a clear and concise way."

This presupposes that there actually comes a possible point at which we understand the experience so well that it becomes clear and concise independently of back and forth dialogue, which if I were to speculate the way you do can only imply that it is you who undermine the possibilities themselves for these kinds of experiences. 

 

"Whatever the case, I suggest you take the time out to really contemplate your experiences and take the time to learn to convey it clearly and concisely with words if you want to express it to others in that way. Of course you don't have to if you don't want to but if you dont, you will go on feeling misunderstood and ostracized by those who you express these experiences to and that's no fun. Trust me. "

I thank you for the advice, I can not think of a better one! It must be a special day the day we find a better use of our time than to contemplate the social meaning of our individual experiences, where we learn its meaning not only from within it, directly, but from without it, as you suggested. So thank you, and I don't doubt that you do speak from experience, though being ostracised is an integral part of the whole process I think, even being fearful of it.

 

"Once I stopped with that game and spent the time to learn how to properly express my experiences, then and only then could conversations occur about them."

Understandable, though this is not how it works out statistically, in most cases, certainly throughout history, we learn to interpret and reinterpret our experiences through dialogue with others, this is, and should be the main focus of this very forum we are discussion through, I think.