Philosophy Now Forum

How to find the true six ...

At sixs and sevens?
Lose sevens.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sat Sep 15, 2018 8:30 am Lacewing...dropping the concept of you’re avatar....what is there, what remains?

I can only try to describe what I've experienced/seen/sensed with human words, and those have too many distorted associations with them to be very clear/accurate. They would be words like energy, space, emptiness, consciousness... without any quality of desire or fear or judgement of any kind. The person and identity is just a temporary manifestation.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sat Sep 15, 2018 8:30 amDoes that what remains exist?

What I've experienced seems to be of an eternal nature, but I do not know. In human terms, it's like floating in vast nothingness while being aware. There is nothing about it that I would perceive or identify as a god. It would seem absurd and very human to do so.

Now, look at the way you and Reflux are projecting onto me. What you think I think or don't think. You have no clue. No amount of words can conceal your own made-up stuff, and how controlled and limited you are by it. Interesting that you projected the image of puppets.

I've answered your questions. Here are some for you. (And Reflex too, if he can be brave and honest enough, which he has often scuttled away from.)

Who is it that you imagine yourself talking to?
Who do you imagine yourself to be?
Do you think that what you see/"know" is of more significance and value than what anyone else sees/"knows"?
Sometimes you recognize/acknowledge humanness (in yourself/others), other times you seem to deny it, and almost detest it -- is that some kind of personal battle for you?
If all is one/connected/of-God, why do you need to tell people to be what they already are?
How do you know what is or is not one/connected/of-God?
How do you know what one/connected/of-God is SUPPOSED to be/look-like?

See if you can simply answer these questions without launching into telling me "how ALL is".

Reflex to DAM wrote: ↑Sat Sep 15, 2018 9:45 am We're condiments evolving the world toward a higher plane of thought.

I'm sure that's true on some level or in some capacity. It appears that there is a vast range of levels and capacities. What do you imagine your "place in the scheme of things" to be?

Reflex to DAM wrote: ↑Sat Sep 15, 2018 9:45 am Do you think he'll get it?

What is it that you think YOU get, Reflex? Please, do try to describe it.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Sat Sep 15, 2018 4:33 pm
I can only try to describe what I've experienced/seen/sensed with human words, and those have too many distorted associations with them to be very clear/accurate. They would be words like energy, space, emptiness, consciousness... without any quality of desire or fear or judgement of any kind. The person and identity is just a temporary manifestation.

A manifestation of what?

What I've experienced seems to be of an eternal nature, but I do not know. In human terms, it's like floating in vast nothingness while being aware. There is nothing about it that I would perceive or identify as a god. It would seem absurd and very human to do so.

Cool! That's classical theism 101: God does not exist but is existence itself (not a being but being itself).

I've answered your questions. Here are some for you. (And Reflex too, if he can be brave and honest enough, which he has often scuttled away from.)

Who is it that you imagine yourself [relating] to? Berkeley said, "Esse est percipi" (to be is to be perceived). I put it differently: "To be is to relate." No relating = non-existence.

Who do you imagine yourself to be? Nonsense question. There is no "who," only the relating.

Do you think that what you see/"know" is of more significance and value than what anyone else sees/"knows"? Do you still beat your kids with a baseball bat? Same kind of question.

Sometimes you recognize/acknowledge humanness (in yourself/others), other times you seem to deny it, and almost detest it -- is that some kind of personal battle for you? Do you still beat your kids with a baseball bat? Same kind of question. Why do you always look for blame outside yourself? Is it possible that you don't get what's being said?

If all is one/connected/of-God, why do you need to tell people to be what they already are? "Need"? Why are you so sensitive to anything outside yourself?

How do you know what is or is not one/connected/of-God? How do you not know?

How do you know what one/connected/of-God is SUPPOSED to be/look-like? Nonsense question.

Why call it God? Does it speak?

Reflex wrote: ↑Sat Sep 15, 2018 6:14 pm

Lacewing wrote: ↑Sat Sep 15, 2018 4:33 pm The person and identity is just a temporary manifestation.

A manifestation of what?

I do not claim to know. I do not claim there is a "what".

Reflex wrote: ↑Sat Sep 15, 2018 6:14 pm

Lacewing wrote: ↑Sat Sep 15, 2018 4:33 pmThere is nothing about it that I would perceive or identify as a god. It would seem absurd and very human to do so.

Cool! That's classical theism 101: God does not exist but is existence itself (not a being but being itself).

Why call it God? Why (as you said earlier) "find an idea of God" at all? What's the point of that?

Reflex wrote: ↑Sat Sep 15, 2018 6:14 pmI put it differently: "To be is to relate." No relating = non-existence.

Who/what are you relating to, and what are you relating?

Reflex wrote: ↑Sat Sep 15, 2018 6:14 pm...

The rest of your answers are childish avoidance that doesn't match the things you generally say. Like DAM, you are escaping your humanness when challenged, to avoid responsibility for the crazy crap you're doing and thinking as a human. Yet, you continually demonstrate that you are very human. So it's a farce.

Do you ever consider how much you don't know/understand?

Lacewing wrote: ↑Sat Sep 15, 2018 6:30 pm

Reflex wrote: ↑Sat Sep 15, 2018 6:14 pm

Lacewing wrote: ↑Sat Sep 15, 2018 4:33 pm The person and identity is just a temporary manifestation.

A manifestation of what?

I do not claim to know. I do not claim there is a "what".

You sound like a broken record (remember those?) and want me to sound like one, too.

Can't get an "ought" from "I don't know" so it behooves you to just shut-up when it comes to anything about values and most anything else.

Reflex wrote: ↑Sat Sep 15, 2018 7:53 pm it behooves you to just shut-up when it comes to anything about values and most anything else.

Who do you imagine you are talking to? What are you projecting?

Lacewing wrote: ↑Sat Sep 15, 2018 7:59 pm

Reflex wrote: ↑Sat Sep 15, 2018 7:53 pm it behooves you to just shut-up when it comes to anything about values and most anything else.

Who do you imagine you are talking to? What are you projecting?

A relation.

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Sep 15, 2018 6:25 pm Why call it God? Does it speak?

For the same reason you're mother named you.

But it wasn't your mother naming you, it was language naming you, language being a conceptual overlay upon you that is already here prior to being named.

The problem lies in naming what's already here, this indescribable, unspeakable, silent, unidentified and unknown even to itself.

Language evolved as a story of the named one, aka ''Other''... its an energetic dynamic that just happened to evolve as part of the whole energy dance that is life living itself. Non-duality, ONENESS appearing as the many.
And contrary to popular belief, this oneness appearing as the many is one unitary action, its one without a second.

The named one, (other) is a conceptual overlay,an integral part of the whole dynamic that is Non-duality.
The (other) aka conceptual overlay is synonymous to the images on a blank screen. Images cannot exist without the blank screen, and that images do exist, means the blank screen MUST exist too. All images belong to the blank screen. Images have no reality in and of themselves.

However, no attention is ever paid to the blank screen, all attention is focused on the images. When attention shifts its focus back to the blank screen, the one sees its real self for the very first time, it is no longer identified with the images.



In essence, IT has no identification, yet every identification appears as IT

Describe silence without using sound? ..That's what God is.

All sound appears and disappears into silence. All images appear and disappear into the imageless. .. That's what God is.

Silence is prior to sound in the sense its the unborn unknown permanent backdrop on which sound is a known temporal appearance inseparable from it.

Silence is known only through sound and vice versa. And while sound is temprol, silence is permanent.





.

Walker wrote: ↑Sat Sep 15, 2018 11:06 am

DAM wrote:Most here think I’m just a mental lost cause, that there is something wrong with my brain.

Was the six lost in Rome?

Not lost.

The desire was to take centre stage, so it was granted, became manifest.

Intension desired itself, it became lucid in its own dream, aware of itself.

.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sun Sep 16, 2018 8:58 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Sep 15, 2018 6:25 pm Why call it God? Does it speak?

For the same reason you're mother named you.

But it wasn't your mother naming you, it was language naming you, language being a conceptual overlay upon you that is already here prior to being named.

The problem lies in naming what's already here, this indescribable, unspeakable, silent, unidentified and unknown even to itself.

Language evolved as a story of the named one, aka ''Other''... its an energetic dynamic that just happened to evolve as part of the whole energy dance that is life living itself. Non-duality, ONENESS appearing as the many.
And contrary to popular belief, this oneness appearing as the many is one unitary action, its one without a second.

The named one, (other) is a conceptual overlay,an integral part of the whole dynamic that is Non-duality.
The (other) aka conceptual overlay is synonymous to the images on a blank screen. Images cannot exist without the blank screen, and that images do exist, means the blank screen MUST exist too. All images belong to the blank screen. Images have no reality in and of themselves.

However, no attention is ever paid to the blank screen, all attention is focused on the images. When attention shifts its focus back to the blank screen, the one sees its real self for the very first time, it is no longer identified with the images.



In essence, IT has no identification, yet every identification appears as IT

Describe silence without using sound? ..That's what God is.

All sound appears and disappears into silence. All images appear and disappear into the imageless. .. That's what God is.

Silence is prior to sound in the sense its the unborn unknown permanent backdrop on which sound is a known temporal appearance inseparable from it.

Silence is known only through sound and vice versa. And while sound is temprol, silence is permanent.





.

You contradicted yourself neatly. I was named, but "IT" has no name, and it's definitely not like any God we came up with, because it isn't like anything at all. So why call it God?

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sat Sep 15, 2018 8:30 am Lacewing...dropping the concept of you’re avatar....what is there, what remains?

Lacewing wrote: ↑Sat Sep 15, 2018 4:33 pmI can only try to describe what I've experienced/seen/sensed with human words, and those have too many distorted associations with them to be very clear/accurate. They would be words like energy, space, emptiness, consciousness... without any quality of desire or fear or judgement of any kind. The person and identity is just a temporary manifestation.

A temporary manifestation is an outward projection, a surface appearance of a much deeper reality, go deeper to who or what is projecting? ..you have avoided answering the original question directly.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Sat Sep 15, 2018 8:30 amDoes that what remains exist?

Lacewing wrote: ↑Sat Sep 15, 2018 4:33 pmWhat I've experienced seems to be of an eternal nature, but I do not know. In human terms, it's like floating in vast nothingness while being aware. There is nothing about it that I would perceive or identify as a god. It would seem absurd and very human to do so.

If the act of preceiving is not a God ..then what is perceiving, can that one be perceived, and by what, and whom?
A human is not the perceiver, a human is perceived..who is the perceiver?

Lacewing wrote: ↑Sat Sep 15, 2018 4:33 pmWho is it that you imagine yourself talking to?

The same one I imagine myself to be.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Sat Sep 15, 2018 4:33 pmWho do you imagine yourself to be?

What ever I imagine. I have no idea what that is, except what I believe it to be as conceived.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Sat Sep 15, 2018 4:33 pmDo you think that what you see/"know" is of more significance and value than what anyone else sees/"knows"?

We only know what we know. To know ''another'' can only be possible because I first know myself. To know ''another'' is a projection of yourself. If you first didn't know yourself, you cannot know that knowledge of yourself exists in another. You create ''other'' by simply knowing yourself. If there was no you, there would be no ''other''

The knower is one in all of us. We all say I ..I is the same consciousness in all of us...but what comes after the I... as in knowledge, experiences, feelings, thoughts,ideas, etc... is the only difference..while the consciousness is the same one in all of us.

Consciousness is projecting itself everywhere. The head of I is an empty mirror ball of knowledge.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Sat Sep 15, 2018 4:33 pmSometimes you recognize/acknowledge humanness (in yourself/others), other times you seem to deny it, and almost detest it -- is that some kind of personal battle for you?

For the I to know anything, the I has to be present...knowledge is an appearance within unknown presence, aka the known.

I AM, but I AM not a human, a human is knowledge, its an imagined conceptual overlay upon what is already present. A conceptual appearance cannot know anything, its already known. . it's knowledge known by presence which is unknown. You cannot know presence, you are presence. You cannot know what you are, only what you are not. Knowing is only ever one with the knowing, itself.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Sat Sep 15, 2018 4:33 pmIf all is one/connected/of-God, why do you need to tell people to be what they already are?

One cannot tell you what you are, only what you are not, knowledge informs the illusory nature of reality.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Sat Sep 15, 2018 4:33 pmHow do you know what is or is not one/connected/of-God?

By being. The I doesn't know, the I is known, by being. Being cannot know itself twice...it cannot split itself into two (knower and the known)

Lacewing wrote: ↑Sat Sep 15, 2018 4:33 pmHow do you know what one/connected/of-God is SUPPOSED to be/look-like?

That's like saying what does a blank screen look like? ..or what does awareness look like? or what does being look like?

Lacewing wrote: ↑Sat Sep 15, 2018 4:33 pmSee if you can simply answer these questions without launching into telling me "how ALL is".

Reality is a show of light and sound.

There is showing, but how the showing shows is unknown, yet,the show is known.

.

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Sep 16, 2018 10:01 am You contradicted yourself neatly. I was named, but "IT" has no name, and it's definitely not like any God we came up with, because it isn't like anything at all. So why call it God?

You don't have to call IT anything at all, but without knowledge, nothing IS KNOWN.

Why do we say IT'S raining? ..what is this IT that is raining?

Words follow the not-knowing, words are knowledge born of not-knowing.



I am the word and the word is with the knower of the word.

Who's playing God here, who ?

Am I playing a role, or am I the role I'm playing?

.

I was named, but "IT" has no name

The IT that has no name, appears as every name.

No thing can define what is without name, yet every name is defining.

No-thing is naming itself.
No-thing exists.


.