What you see NOW is all that exists...

[tuku747]

53 minutes ago, Anonman90 said:

Now I see the depth of your comment, you're correct.

When Ramana Maharashi was dying, his devotees told him "Baghvan, don't leave us"

He told them "Don't be silly, where could I go? I'm always here"

It is the essence of human beings that is real. The Essence is What Is.

The human form is transitory. Essence is the Eternal One. It is what We Are.

[Inliytened1]

8 minutes ago, tuku747 said:

It is the essence of human beings that is real. The Essence is What Is.

The human form is transitory. Essence is the Eternal One. It is what We Are.

But also the Eternal One is dreaming everything  - including  "other" and you are not the self or ego but you are the "eternal one".   And so all "other" are merely figments of your imagination.  What he was trying to convey is that there is nothing outside of your consciousness.  NOTHING.  You are IT.

[tuku747]

1 minute ago, Inliytened1 said:

But also the Eternal One is dreaming everything  - including  "other" and you are not the self or ego but you are the "eternal one".   And so all "other" are merely figments of your imagination.  What he was trying to convey is that there is nothing outside of your consciousness.  NOTHING.  You are IT.

My consciousness is your consciousnesses, And yours is mine. The Unified Field.

[Inliytened1]

Just now, tuku747 said:

My consciousness is your consciousnesses, And yours is mine. The Unified Field.

No no.  There is no yours.  It's just One.  I don't have a consciousness to unite with yours.   What you thought was my consciousness is held within your consciousness  

[tuku747]

1 minute ago, Inliytened1 said:

No no.  There is no yours.  It's just One.  I don't have a consciousness to unite with yours.   What you thought was my consciousness is held within your consciousness  

no u

[Jrix]

14 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

That's not what I asked you.   I asked you for what your view on the nature of reality was.   I am eager to share mine.  Do you find shyness in sharing yours?  There is no need to be shy. 

Sorry, I thought your question was contextually related to the conversation.

I don't feel I have a worldview on the scale of this kind of stuff so if I had to say, it'd be something like:

The strangeness of replacing others, with abstractions, caricatures, and/or suspicion; and further, being concerned with another's intentions, seems too stupid to exist.
Clearly though, this phenomenon exists, so something bizarre must be happening that is outside my capacities to make sense of.

There are some marginal cases where this makes sense, such as in war, or a child raised in a scarcity-situation, but outside of those highly specific cases, it's functionally braindead.
I'm presuming I'm ignorant on this matter though, hence the exploration of which this dialogue is included.

[Inliytened1]

8 minutes ago, Jrix said:

Sorry, I thought your question was contextually related to the conversation.

I don't feel I have a worldview on the scale of this kind of stuff

 

It's quite simple now.  I'm going to poke you a bit here, but don't take it personally.   You seem highly intelligent, so you should be able to understand that I'm doing this with your best interests in mind.  

In your view - is reality objective? Meaning it exists independently of your consciousness- and for that matter it exists independently of consciousness in general?

Then - if such answer is yes - than what is it objectively made of?  Is it atoms?  Quarks?  Strings?  Have you done any research into quantum physics?

There... either way, now you have a worldview. 

 

Edited January 18 by Inliytened1

[Inliytened1]

28 minutes ago, tuku747 said:

no u

 

[Jrix]

40 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

It's quite simple now.  I'm going to poke you a bit here, but don't take it personally.   You seem highly intelligent, so you should be able to understand that I'm doing this with your best interests in mind.  

In your view - is reality objective? Meaning it exists independently of your consciousness- and for that matter it exists independently of consciousness in general?

Then - if such answer is yes - than what is it objectively made of?  Is it atoms?  Quarks?  Strings?  Have you done any research into quantum physics?

There... either way, now you have a worldview. 

 

The material constituents, or whatever cascade/milieu of consciousness that composes of reality, seems distantly secondary to the "stupidity" I mentioned above.

If hypothetically, I scientifically proved the universe was made of superstrings or whatever, and that above-stupidity continued to exist, that would simply mean I don't know what's going on in a meaningful way. (I consider things concerned with the definition of "meaning" to be unavailable to communication.)

That would weakly suppose consciousness, or rather, whatever subjective properties precede that notion of "stupidity", has a role in constructing reality, if not for the fact that in the absence of consciousness that stupidity is merely replaced with a kind of existential suicide; the same stupid sans subjectivity.

I'm sure there's more recreational things to say, perhaps as it relates specifically to the scientific enterprise, but what I said prior is enough to capture my beliefs and the ignorance it's composed of. If there's more to explore outside those beliefs than my ignorance, than that ignorance ought be considered first.

 

Edited January 18 by Jrix

[Inliytened1]

5 minutes ago, Jrix said:

The material constituents, or whatever cascade/milieu of consciousness that composes of reality, seems distantly secondary to the "stupidity" I mentioned above.

If hypothetically, I scientifically proved the universe was made of superstrings or whatever, and that above-stupidity continued to exist, that would simply mean I don't know what's going on in a meaningful way. (I consider things concerned with the definition of "meaning" to be unavailable to communication.)

That would weakly suppose consciousness, or rather, whatever subjective properties precede that notion of "stupidity", has a role in constructing reality, if not for the fact that in the absence of consciousness that stupidity is merely replaced with a kind of existential suicide; the same stupid sans subjectivity.

I'm sure there's more to recreational things to say, perhaps as it relates specifically to the scientific enterprise, but what I said is prior is enough to capture my beliefs and the ignorance it's composed of. If there's more to explore outside those beliefs than my ignorance, than that ignorance ought be considered first.

 

Dude I'm gonna be honest here- you are seriously out there.   I will leave it at that. 

[Carl-Richard]

3 hours ago, Anonman90 said:

Right now, I see my phone's screen talking to myself in another imaginary form because my Ego is so big and attached, I can't let go realizing you and I are One 

Do you see that your phone's screen is ultimately illusory, and that all the "things" you see right now are also ultimately illusory? So how can your particular illusion be all that exists? You seeing yourself typing these forum posts from your perspective is just as much an illusion as me typing my forum posts from my perspective. Neither perspective is all that is. It's all illusion. All that is is God.

Edited January 18 by Carl-Richard

[Jrix]

With respect to the above; it's similarly bizarre when someone asks what another's beliefs are.
Beliefs manifest in one's actions.
Asking someone to self-reference their beliefs makes no sense; and I can't imagine doing that.

[Carl-Richard]

@Jrix

Is this @Reciprocality's weird uncle?

[Inliytened1]

1 minute ago, Jrix said:

With respect to the above; it's similarly bizarre when someone asks what another's beliefs are.
Beliefs manifest in one's actions.
Asking someone to self-reference their beliefs makes no sense; and I can't imagine doing that.

 

2 minutes ago, Jrix said:

With respect to the above; it's similarly bizarre when someone asks what another's beliefs are.
Beliefs manifest in one's actions.
Asking someone to self-reference their beliefs makes no sense; and I can't imagine doing that.

There is nothing wrong with asking one-s worldview.  It's just a question. 

[Jrix]

15 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

 

There is nothing wrong with asking one-s worldview.  It's just a question. 

It's a question that implies actions aren't enough.
Which seems ridiculous, because beliefs manifest in action.

I wouldn't even think it "wrong".
More, nonsensical.
But now that you mention it, if there were ever an arrogant use of "wrong" with some justification, this seems like a decent candidate.

Not only is one suggesting that actions aren't enough, but one is also suggesting:

• that self-reference replaces action
• that linguistic biases and errors endemic to self-reference don't exist
• that the many species of self-deception *should be* exacerbated (as self-reference tends to do)
• that another's beliefs matter at all independent of their action
• that self-reference ought precede action
• that one is not present enough to engage in action, such that this question is deemed necessary
• that the various ideological engines that capture individuals is to be given *the floor*
• that another's failure to articulate is a funnel into the veracity of their beliefs
• that (at least quite clearly in this case "out there"), a believed statement on the coordinates one's belief reside in relative to the corpus of beliefs
   

[Inliytened1]

8 minutes ago, Jrix said:

It's a question that implies actions aren't enough.
Which seems ridiculous, because beliefs manifest in action.

I wouldn't even think it "wrong".
More, nonsensical.
But now that you mention it, if there were ever an arrogant use of "wrong" with some justification, this seems like a decent candidate.

Not only is one suggesting that actions aren't enough, but one is also suggesting:

• that self-reference replaces action
• that linguistic biases and errors endemic to self-reference don't exist
• that the many species of self-deception *should be* exacerbated (as self-reference tends to do)
• that another's beliefs matter at all independent of their action
• that self-reference ought precede action
• that one is not present enough to engage in action, such that this question is deemed necessary
• that the various ideological engines that capture individuals is to be given *the floor*
• that another's failure to articulate is a funnel into the veracity of their beliefs
• that (at least quite clearly in this case "out there"), a believed statement on the coordinates one's belief reside in relative to the corpus of beliefs
   

No it doesn't.  That's something you are inferring or projecting falsely onto me.  I simply asked you that to get a feel of where you stood in life - what your metaphysical views were and what your overall view on reality was.  I didn’t do this so that I would have more leverage on you- I did this so that I could get to know you.

But of course, you reacted with hostility.  This is only because I called you out on philosophical views that you have never considered.  So you were caught with your pants down, so to speak.  It's all good.  We can converse knowing your worldview is null.   I just wanted to know who I was to be conversing with.  With that said - I would be happy to answer anything you would like to ask about reality.   As for me - I'm a 53 year old enlightened idealist - who couldn't fathom anything else for reality but consciousness.   There cannot be anything outside of consciousness and there never will be.  

Edited January 18 by Inliytened1

[Jrix]

 

34 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

No it doesn't.  That's something you are inferring or projecting falsely onto me.  I simply asked you that to get a feel of where you stood in life - what your metaphysical views were and what your overall view on reality was.  I didn’t do this so that I would have more leverage on you- I did this so that I could get to know you.

But of course, you reacted with hostility.  This is only because I called you out on philosophical views that you have never considered.  So you were caught with your pants down, so to speak.  It's all good.  We can converse knowing your worldview is null.   I just wanted to know who I was to be conversing with.  With that said - I would be happy to answer anything you would like to ask about reality.   As for me - I'm a 53 year old enlightened idealist - who couldn't fathom anything else for reality but consciousness.   There cannot be anything outside of consciousness and there never will be.  

The nonsense (but willing to go with "wrong" per your suggestion) of it has nothing to do with your intentions; there is nothing to "project", even if by some miracle there was a projection occurring.

> It's just a question. 
> I simply asked

The purported "simplicity" was already understood when I replied.
There's no need to further emphasize that.
At the very least, my (relatively) lengthy response suggests a disagreement on the matter of its simplicity.

> But of course, you reacted with hostility. 
>  I didn’t do this so that I would have more leverage on you- I did this so that I could get to know you.
>  As for me - I'm a 53 year old enlightened idealist - who couldn't fathom anything else for reality but consciousness

I don't see what my emotional disposition has to do with anything with respect to my comments.
Nor do I see what your personal accolades or reaffirmations of motivation have to do with anything.

Wouldn't one think what was said; takes precedence over whatever our respective emotions are?

[Inliytened1]

9 minutes ago, Jrix said:

 

Wouldn't one think what was said; takes precedence over whatever our respective emotions are?

And what exactly was said?  At this point with your level of logical deduction im afraid I've become lost in the frey.  But I'm sure you will be right there to rescue me and set me straight. 

Edited January 18 by Inliytened1

[AerisVahnEphelia]

1 hour ago, Inliytened1 said:

No it doesn't.  That's something you are inferring or projecting falsely onto me.  I simply asked you that to get a feel of where you stood in life - what your metaphysical views were and what your overall view on reality was.  I didn’t do this so that I would have more leverage on you- I did this so that I could get to know you.

But of course, you reacted with hostility.  This is only because I called you out on philosophical views that you have never considered.  So you were caught with your pants down, so to speak.  It's all good.  We can converse knowing your worldview is null.   I just wanted to know who I was to be conversing with.  With that said - I would be happy to answer anything you would like to ask about reality.   As for me - I'm a 53 year old enlightened idealist - who couldn't fathom anything else for reality but consciousness.   There cannot be anything outside of consciousness and there never will be.  

@Inliytened1 are you really those things ? 

 

how can someone speak of a thing that can't be a thing, why would someone imagine this ?

 

I think he is very clear, maybe it's better to not assume intentions.

Why would people imagine always "intentions", on what are those things based on ?

fear, love, gambling addiction ?

Edited January 18 by AerisVahnEphelia

[Jrix]

17 minutes ago, Inliytened1 said:

And what exactly was said?  At this point with your level of logical deduction im afraid I've become lost in the frey.  But I'm sure you will be right there to rescue me and set me straight. 

The hell??

In everything said, your take away is:

1. I am hostile
2. Caught with my pants down
3. I am projecting
4. Something about my logic
(5.) "Out there"

Even setting aside your nihilistic approach to conversation.

> And what exactly was said?
> But I'm sure you will be right there to rescue me and set me straight. 

Wouldn't the most basic of decency prompt one to participate in the exercise of discourse, before asking one to repeat or clarify?