Nothing exists outside of my consciousness

[Arthogaan]

16 hours ago, Breakingthewall said:

In the eternity of existence, has anything other than Carl Richard ever existed? If so, where is that something now? in the past?

Hmmmm. I will say how I feel this.

Eternity is an idea that is imagined inside the Now. 

So I would answer that nope, in the eternity of existence nothing other than This Now existed. Only This Now.

[Leo Gura]

What about space raccoons?

[Breakingthewall]

27 minutes ago, Arthogaan said:

Hmmmm. I will say how I feel this.

Eternity is an idea that is imagined inside the Now. 

So I would answer that nope, in the eternity of existence nothing other than This Now existed. Only This Now.

20 hours ago, Carl-Richard said:

 

Yes but this now has many perspectives. Where are them? 

[Arthogaan]

2 minutes ago, Breakingthewall said:

Yes but this now has many perspectives. Where are them? 

There seems to be only This Perspective happening now.

[Javfly33]

7 minutes ago, Arthogaan said:

There seems to be only This Perspective happening now.

You wont ever ever experience other thing that IS not "This experience".

Yet, that IS not the point...The point is "This Perspective" can radically get different and profound.

"this experience" does not have the same profoundity when you are drinking 3 beers VS when you are reading a book at your home VS when you take a psychedelic VS when you chant a mantra Alone in nature for 6 hours.

So IS not totally correct to assume "This Experience" as that IS something means limited or "Alone*.

It feels limited because your perception is limited. But It can get unlimited.

[Arthogaan]

2 minutes ago, Javfly33 said:

You wont ever ever experience other thing that IS not "This experience".

Yet, that IS not the point...The point is "This Perspective" can radically get different and profound.

"this experience" does not have the same profoundity when you are drinking 3 beers VS when you are reading a book at your home VS when you take a psychedelic VS when you chant a mantra Alone in nature for 6 hours.

So IS not totally correct to assume "This Experience" as that IS something means limited or "Alone*.

It feels limited because your perception is limited. But It can get unlimited.

I fully agree.

It's beautiful unbounded lucid luminous impersonal centereless unlimited.

But still only This seems to be happening. No others. No other povs happening somewhere in eternity.

Just This.

[Javfly33]

24 minutes ago, Arthogaan said:

But still only This seems to be happening. No others. No other povs happening somewhere in eternity.

Just This.

Yeah, but the thing is, when your perception gets infinite there is no question about others or others povs, there is just dissolution into a ONE boundless Unity.

Is the death of the ilusion, so is the death of the self, but inevitably also of the others. 😃

Because others could Only exist if there was a self in the first place ♥️

 

[Arthogaan]

2 minutes ago, Javfly33 said:

Yeah, but the thing is, when your perception gets infinite there is no question about others or others povs, there is just dissolution into a ONE boundless Unity.

Is the death of the ilusion, so is the death of the self, but inevitably also of the others. 😃

Because others could Only exist if there was a self in the first place ♥️

 

Agreed bro 

[James123]

The question is very is your consciousness or where are you?

[Breakingthewall]

1 hour ago, Arthogaan said:

There seems to be only This Perspective happening now.

Yes seems that, because you are the perspective. That means that it's only this perspective? I don't think so, because I can observe and see others, perceive them deeply and see that they are infinite, as me. Maybe I'm wrong, but seems quite obvious that no. Anyway, spiritual thing is open to myself, not to know what the others are, or anything else

[r0ckyreed]

1 hour ago, Leo Gura said:

What about space raccoons?

Space raccoons are a human fiction that you just imagined. It isn’t outside consciousness at all. Even the idea of other sovereign bubbles is also an idea inside consciousness. It’s all an illusion.

[Carl-Richard]

3 hours ago, Reciprocality said:

Everything x which is sufficiently different from the thing y upon which it follows must stand in relation to every other thing through a distinct self that contains the very attributes in relation to which that x, though the intellect could find no analogy between it and y for which the spontaneity of subsequents in general are owed, is spontaneously occurring..

Bro you're literally making no sense.

[Carl-Richard]

1 hour ago, Breakingthewall said:

Yes but this now has many perspectives.

How so?

Edited March 9 by Carl-Richard

[Reciprocality]

1 hour ago, Carl-Richard said:

Bro you're literally making no sense.

@Carl-Richard This^you responded to the following sentence: "Everything x which is sufficiently different from the thing y upon which it follows must stand in relation to every other thing through a distinct self that contains the very attributes in relation to which that x, though the intellect could find no analogy between it and y for which the spontaneity of subsequents in general are owed, is spontaneously occurring."

 

Yes I would certainly just put these words together in a huge pile just for shits and giggles.

It is a sentence without concrete referents, humans can think concepts that does not pertain to particular things in the world with distinct characteristics, every word in your own sentence has the same structure to them as those in mine, you just piled seven dualities together to express confusion yet will insist that when other plays your game with set of dualities that together express unfamiliar meaning that therefore it can not make sense.

Let me try to kind of write it as a composition of individual statements.

There is spontaneity in particular. There is spontaneity in general. There are particular attributes. There are attributes in general. There are identities, there are differences. A relation in general is a relation in particular. A relation is not such a thing which can be different dependent on context, has no essence but serves an important function in language similar to syntax in general. There are things. Something can follow another thing, such things are called subsequent. Something can if so merely in principle occur without spontaneity. An x can represent partiality of plurality. Y and x can represent a plurality. Some things are imagined after other things. Some things are imagined because they are similar to the preceding moment, such occurrences implies sufficiency. There is sufficiency in general. There is randomness if so merely in principle. Some relationships between imagined things are nonrandom. Something that must happen can not fail to happen. There is a self. A self must have characteristics.

If you take problem with any of these then lets hear, if you do not then the above statement should be computable and if you are able to write it better and clearer than I did then teach me your arts. 

Edited March 9 by Reciprocality

[Carl-Richard]

11 minutes ago, Reciprocality said:

Let me try to write it in a composition of individual statements.There is spontaneity in particular. There is spontaneity in general. There are particular attributes. There are attributes in general. There are things.

Something can follow another thing, such things are called subsequent. Something can if so merely in principle occur without spontaneity. An x can represent partiality of plurality. Y and x can represent a plurality. Some things are imagined after other things. Some things are imagined because they are similar to the preceding moment, such occurrences implies sufficiency. There is sufficiency in general. There is randomness if so merely in principle. Some relationships between imagined things are nonrandom. Something that must happen can not fail to happen. There is a self. A self must have characteristics.

How do the individual statements connect? That is the point of a sentence: providing things that connect. If they don't connect, you're just saying a bunch of random statements.

[Reciprocality]

3 minutes ago, Carl-Richard said:

How do the individual statements connect? That is the point of a sentence: providing things that connect. If they don't connect, you're just saying a bunch of random statements.

@Carl-Richard Well obviously that is the point, that they connect, but not that they connect in general, which they do, but instead that they connect and form a particular conclusion.

If the principle that all memories at a given moment must either occur because they are sufficiently similar to whatever happened the previous moment or because they stand in relation to a self is correct then if that self has no characteristics then there would be no reason for any particular element in the set of all memories to occur as opposed to any of the other particular ones at a given moment except for because of its sufficient similarity to the previous moment.

[Reciprocality]

@Carl-Richard So it follows that the highest purposes belongs to the highest sense of selves.

..If purposivity in similar fashion to the self is over and beyond pattern-recognition, the function of sufficient similarity.

 

Anyone who has questioned deeply their identity and therefore identities in general will have wondered how they come to have an ability to identify anything at all, sufficient similarity between memories follows from there, I mean it has to. Do you want to argue against that?

Id be up for that, sounds exiting. 

Edited March 10 by Reciprocality

[Reciprocality]

Also, I have not circled back to that initial comment you referred to, explicitly, I am simply saying that nature is in need of a sense of self and that we can actually know through analysis and logic that if it did not have that need it would not be purposive cus even sufficient similarity on its own would require states that are not identical and non-identical states requires that which includes the other and that does not happen without active duality.

To perhaps make it more familiar: All this is a variation of the conception of the impossibility of physical randomness, which I am sure you have heard about. 

Edited March 10 by Reciprocality

[Davino]

@Someone here You need to understand that you cannot map all of existence

But you can Awaken to it

From this Awakening you can map the territory

Like exploring the mind the cartographist from direct exploration through the world in all continents maps it and shares it with the world. That's how maps were born and the greatgranfather of Google Maps

In the same way that is philosophy and conceptual thinking

And conceptual thinking can even be created from the Awake state. You cann add everything to it don't you worry! you can still be yourself, you will forreal be yourself

Edited March 10 by Davino

[Reciprocality]

2 hours ago, Davino said:

@Someone here You need to understand that you cannot map all of existence

But you can Awaken to it

From this Awakening you can map the territory

Like exploring the mind the cartographist from direct exploration through the world in all continents maps it and shares it with the world. That's how maps were born and the greatgranfather of Google Maps

In the same way that is philosophy and conceptual thinking

And conceptual thinking can even be created from the Awake state. You cann add everything to it don't you worry! you can still be yourself, you will forreal be yourself

@Davino You can in principle map all of existence, but what you may mean to say is that you can not map existence as a whole.

A better way to frame the above: let us say that you could not map all of existence, it would not be because you can not map existence as a whole.

 

What is the difference?