Veritas Aequitas's illusory God

[TimeSeeker]

Is NULL nothing or something?

This very question is a trap. The moment you ask it you have duped yourself into dualism. NULL is NULL.

Yes, its the trip trap of the dualistic mind.

There is no I in AM

There is no I to be AM

I AM

That's the point, we play hide and seek in the mirror and the moment we catch a glimpse of our essence I am coming out of unconsciousness.

That which ''comes from'' IS what it comes from.That which ''comes from'' is via reflection. Reflection is a trip you take with yourself. If one is 'trippin' they get what they are asking for.

What comes from ''unconciousness'' is not what you think.

.

I don’t think even “I am” is necessary.

I.

It is recursive/self-referential. All recursion is evidence of computation. Cogito is implied in saying “I”.

[Veritas Aequitas]

If you refer to anything that is Absolute, you just cannot bring in anything relative even to itself. That would be a contradiction.

But there is no one to refer to the ABSOLUTE, there is only the ABSOLUTE referring to itself. FROM SELF TO self.

The ''apparent'' contradiction is a divine paradox, its unavoidable, just as you cannot experience your own awakening (conception) nor your own absence.

Just accept that things are not what they seem, nor are they otherwise...before you give yourself a migrane.

You were the one who stated 'relative.'
I stated you cannot use the term 'relative' with the term 'Absolute'.

But there is no one to refer to the ABSOLUTE, there is only the ABSOLUTE referring to itself. FROM SELF TO self.

But "you" are now referring to the Absolute.
Therefore that 'Absolute' cannot be absolutely absolute but at most can only be a relative 'absolute'.

Why you are faced with this conundrum, is because what you are claiming is merely an illusion, i.e. there is no independent Absolute that exists by itself.

Btw, I am not stopping you from accepting the idea of the Absolute for whatever the purpose, but it is critical that you understand the limitations and counter arguments to your claims, i.e. it is fundamentally an illusion driven by psychological impulses.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Can we stick to a genial and amicable discussion?

Okay, just as long as you remember you are only ever talking to yourself.

One simply doesn't THINK...how could it, how would it know it is thinking, until it invents another, conceives itself as the perceiver knower of itself as and through its other self, that knows every thought as and when that thought arises in itself alone.


HA HA, as the mirror said to itself, ahh, so we meet again.

If puppet KNOWS it ultimately pulls its own strings does that make it also...NOT a puppet? And if its not a puppet who is pulling the strings?

Don't give all sorts of conditions.
I am not a saint.
If you are nasty with demeaning 'words' I will counter that with an eye for an eye but then it will turn very ugly [e.g. with Averroes in another thread]. I am just trying to avoid that.

Btw, I have high regards for those accepting the ideas of non-duality, absolute [whichever], and the likes in the spiritual perspective. It is just that I have a counter view to the point that the absolute is absolutely absolute, i.e. totally independent.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Crudely, that is like a Schizophrenic believing the gnomes he 'really talked' with in his garden are 'real'. But common knowledge inform us, the schizo was hallucinating an illusion [empirical] from his neural process within his brain and mind.

Now, let say a theist understood that the God which he thinks is real is actually an illusion.
As such the theist will have to accept the God he believed is not real but an illusion and illusory. Then most of such theists will give up theism while some will remain theists despite knowing the truth.

But, thoughts are not real, in contrast that which is aware of thought is real. No thing can ever make rational sense without the contrasting opposites.

A theist is a thought.
A schizo is a thought.
An atheist is a thought.

That is my point.

I am arguing, the idea of 'Absolute' is also a thought.
Worst the idea of 'Absolute' is baseless and groundless.

In contrast, a theist, schizo and atheist is represented by a living human person with a physical body and brain/mind that is thinking that thought.

Thoughts cannot and do not think. They do not know anything, they are KNOWN

This is obvious.

Beliefs, thoughts, ideas, conceptualising, explaining...is just more paint on the screen of awareness obscuring the screen ever more from view until only the thoughts exist, the stuff.

The screen is whats real, everything else is an appearance upon that. That which appears and disappears never affects or can extinguish the screen of awareness, its the gorundless ground of all appearances, its the unchanging constant that has to be.

Knowledge informs the illusory nature of reality in the sense reality is not what thought (knowledge) thinks it is.

Reality is one huge giant big hallucination from source to source, endlessly, infinitely.

God is not a conceptual object known. That's not what God is. That which is KNOWN, cannot know anything...for all things are known, one with the knowing.

By believing/thinking a Gnome is real is believing an object is real, that's not what is being pointed to here.
Objects are not aware of themselves. They are being awared.

The point is "That which is KNOWN" is an illusion.

Note,
1. By believing/thinking a Gnome is real is believing an entity [thing] is real, but we know there is no such thing as a real Gnome.

2. By believing/thinking a God is real is believing an entity [thing] is real, but there is no proofs God is real.

You insist God is real without proofs and most theists rely on faith.

I have proven God is an impossibility.
God is a thought arising from psychological impulses.
People 'experienced' God due to mental illnesses, brain damage, taking drugs & hallucinogens, and many other non-religious reasons.

The above explanation for a God is based on reason, arguments and empirical evidence which is more reliable than the theists belief based on faith.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Good morning VA. YOU keep tripping over this BELIEF thing. Non Dual Spiritualists don't believe in God. Rather, they've had DIRECT EXPERIENCE of God. God. God. God. Too bad you're so much in fear of this word. Its what you ARE man.

The concept of 'believe' in a continuum of degrees is always based on experience and direct experience.

Crudely, an example,
a schizophrenic believe gnomes exist because he have had 'direct experience' of talking to them.

the above is the same with a theist [non-dualist] who have had direct experience of God.

in both cases, the direct experience is not supported with proofs that the gnomes or God exists as real.

Just as you would not accept the schizo's claims because there is no evidence, non-theists would not accept your claim of a God because there is no evidence.

You may insist, even without physical evidence, a proof of reality can be presented in an inference from an argument.
But I have shown any argument for a God is an impossibility.
I have demonstrated God is an impossibility.

The idea of God is an illusion, but nevertheless very useful to be used for one's psychological [existential] purposes. The theists should be able to feel the psychological impulses when they direct their thoughts to a God or defend their belief of a God against non-theists.
Some theists will even kill non-theists individually or in a genocide when they imagine their belief in God is threatened. They are believing [in different degrees] in the same God as you!

[Dontaskme]

If you refer to anything that is Absolute, you just cannot bring in anything relative even to itself. That would be a contradiction.

But there is no one to refer to the ABSOLUTE, there is only the ABSOLUTE referring to itself. FROM SELF TO self.

The ''apparent'' contradiction is a divine paradox, its unavoidable, just as you cannot experience your own awakening (conception) nor your own absence.

Just accept that things are not what they seem, nor are they otherwise...before you give yourself a migrane.

You were the one who stated 'relative.'
I stated you cannot use the term 'relative' with the term 'Absolute'.

I've already stated before that relative ideas about the absolute is absurd, but you have probably just forgotten I've already stated this, or you've just missed it.

Can you not go beyond the words? to the direct experience of being prior to knowledge..to see that knowledge is just a fictional conceptual overlay upon what is this immediate direct experience of ''beingness'' without any prior knowledge of ''what it is'' ? ...

But there is no one to refer to the ABSOLUTE, there is only the ABSOLUTE referring to itself. FROM SELF TO self.

But "you" are now referring to the Absolute.
Therefore that 'Absolute' cannot be absolutely absolute but at most can only be a relative 'absolute'.

No, its not a ''someone'' referring to the Absolute. I AM the Absolute in finite, referring to myself, as and through a relative concept, a.k.a the Absolute embodied within the human mind body organism.
Matter and consciousness are inseparably interwoven together as ONE a.k.a the ABSOLUTE. .Just as the screen of awareness and the player (object of awareness) are united by participation.

Why you are faced with this conundrum, is because what you are claiming is merely an illusion, i.e. there is no independent Absolute that exists by itself.

There is no ''WHO'' in the Absolute. The Absolute is this immediate direct groundless ground of everything and nothing. No thing started it, no thing can end it, no thing can know it, no thing can touch it, it has no colour, no emotion, no attribute, no mind, no thought about itself, no thing can see it, taste it, hear it, feel it, smell it. NO THOUGHT CAN THINK ABOUT IT. No thing can explain it, no thing can descibe it, no thing can hold it in their hand....No thing can claim it, no thing can own it, no thing can be it.

And yet IT is all these ''things'' THIS IS IT

It's a divine paradox - It's like trying to think of a thoughtless state using thought, its like trying to describe silence by filling it up with sounding words. Or, trying to point to emptiness using your finger. The finger negates the emptiness IN ITS PRESENCE so that all that's left is the finger.

The truth is ..is that the space that embodies the finger defines the finger, and the finger defines the space. There is No object without space, and no space without object.
There is no finger in the finger claiming it is a finger..its the space around the finger that defines the finger, and in conjunction by association the finger defines the space...so no thing is actually defining anything here. And that is the same for the Absolute. There is no ''WHO'' in the Absolute because the Absolute is this immediate direct Unlimited Infinity...which is EVERYTHING AND NOTHING, including the thought of YOU.

"Nothing" actually doesn't exist. Even the concept of "nothing" is made by something. "Nothing" is an illusion. Everything is infinite because "nothing" doesn't exist. It's the ultimate illusion. The illusion of death come from this, the illusion of science, the illusion of god. All of the illusions come from the concept that "something" is limited, and outside of it there is "nothing". When in fact, "nothing" doesn't exist, and everything is infinite.

And that's what the Absolute IS.

Until your mind can grasp the idea of Absolute Infinity you will keep going round in endless circles trying to reason your way out of your argument.

In fact forget the mind, you will not grasp this with your mind, for the ''identified'' mind serves only as a blockage when attempting to understand the concept of Unlimited Infinity.

.

[TimeSeeker]

So, since you are all disagreeing (self-evident claim) on whether something is or isn’t an illusion, whether something is relative or absolute, then would that at least mean that you recognize Perspectivism as a problem to be solved before doing Philosophy; or do you recognise it as just another philosophical perspective?

If it is not a problem then do you interpret that as evidence for or against Perspectivism?

Is Perspectivism objectively and absolutely true?
How do you answer this without contradicting yourself?

Is the above argument circular OR recursive?
How do we decide that?

More questions without answers!

If a finite mind can grasp the concept of infinity - I think it needs a lesson in physics.

Infinities can only be grasped behaviouristically in the axiomatic framework of Mathematics i.e an open system.

Infinities in closed systems are a contradiction.

Philosophy could benefit from some systems thinking ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_theory ) since logic/logos/language is itself a system.

[Dontaskme]

I am arguing, the idea of 'Absolute' is also a thought.
Worst the idea of 'Absolute' is baseless and groundless.

There has to be something that is aware of every thought/concept that itself is not a thought/concept. Awareness is the space between thought that is not the thought.
A thought is the ground /bound appearance within / upon THIS groundless boundless ABSOLUTE.
This idea is an oxymoron that cannot be avoided.
The space is like the womb of creation. There is no creation without the void that is the womb of ALL POSSIBILTY

This is Nonduality, which is the Not-happening space in which all appearances/things happen, this can be difficult to grasp, but not impossible.

In contrast, a theist, schizo and atheist is represented by a living human person with a physical body and brain/mind that is thinking that thought.

That which is aware of thought is not the thought, awareness cannot experience itself as an object, neither can it experience itself as awareness, for it is both, and yet neither.

The point is "That which is KNOWN" is an illusion.

Yes the KNOWN is an illusion, but the illusion still exists..who is the ''other'' that is going to negate this persistent illusion? ..would that be an illusion too...how will / can an illusion negate another illusion?..that would still leave the illusion that negated the other illusion left standing...do you see a problem here?

The above explanation for a God is based on reason, arguments and empirical evidence which is more reliable than the theists belief based on faith.

The belief that there is a ''someone'' to reason, argue, see and know empirical evidence, hold to beliefs and concepts identifying itself with such is ALSO based on FAITH ALONE.

Until THIS is understood totally and completely by no one...one will continue to be turned in endless circles going round and round getting nowhere now here where you've always been and never not been.

You are the circle. It has no argument with itself.

.

[TimeSeeker]

Is self-reference circular and therefore paradoxical OR recursive?

Philosophy pre-supposes circular reasoning as bad and so the distinction is of utmost importance!

Recursion is computation.
Circularity is chasing your own tail.

That tiny distinction is the difference between falling into the void and swimming out of the mental muddle.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strange_loop

[Dontaskme]

Is self-reference circular and therefore paradoxical OR recursive?

Philosophy pre-supposes circular reasoning as bad and so the distinction is of utmost importance!

Recursion is computation.
Circularity is chasing your own tail.

That tiny distinction is the difference between falling into the void and swimming out of the mental muddle.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strange_loop

Absolute infinity is both infinite and finite simultaneously, a strange loop.

...death is living, and living is dying alternating betweem the two stateless states infinitely for eternity.

[TimeSeeker]

Is self-reference circular and therefore paradoxical OR recursive?

Philosophy pre-supposes circular reasoning as bad and so the distinction is of utmost importance!

Recursion is computation.
Circularity is chasing your own tail.

That tiny distinction is the difference between falling into the void and swimming out of the mental muddle.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strange_loop

Absolute infinity is both infinite and finite simultaneously, a strange loop.

...death is living, and living is dying alternating betweem the two stateless states infinitely for eternity.

Both infinite and finite is a dualistic tautology. Not a loop.
A distinction without a difference.

No animal undergoes such a cycle. Every living thing dies. Never to live again.

This is the notion of world line in statistics.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_line

[Veritas Aequitas]

So, since you are all disagreeing (self-evident claim) on whether something is or isn’t an illusion, whether something is relative or absolute, then would that at least mean that you recognize Perspectivism as a problem to be solved before doing Philosophy; or do you recognise it as just another philosophical perspective?

If it is not a problem then do you interpret that as evidence for or against Perspectivism?

Is Perspectivism objectively and absolutely true?
How do you answer this without contradicting yourself?

Is the above argument circular OR recursive?
How do we decide that?

More questions without answers!

If a finite mind can grasp the concept of infinity - I think it needs a lesson in physics.

Infinities can only be grasped behaviouristically in the axiomatic framework of Mathematics i.e an open system.

Infinities in closed systems are a contradiction.

Philosophy could benefit from some systems thinking ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_theory ) since logic/logos/language is itself a system.

In a way my perspective is Perspectivism in general.
I don't agree with there is something that is absolutely true. i.e. independent of human conditions.
Thus I don't claim Perspectivism is absolutely true.

I define objectivity as intersubjective consensus.
What is critical is we establish objectivity withing a defined perspective via intersubjective consensus of justified propositions.
For example there is objectivity within the scientific perspective, the legal perspective, etc.

I am for System Theory.
Note the Framework and SYSTEM of Morality and Ethics I had proposed in the other thread.

[Veritas Aequitas]

I am arguing, the idea of 'Absolute' is also a thought.
Worst the idea of 'Absolute' is baseless and groundless.

There has to be something that is aware of every thought/concept that itself is not a thought/concept. Awareness is the space between thought that is not the thought.
A thought is the ground /bound appearance within / upon THIS groundless boundless ABSOLUTE.
This idea is an oxymoron that cannot be avoided.
The space is like the womb of creation. There is no creation without the void that is the womb of ALL POSSIBILTY

This is Nonduality, which is the Not-happening space in which all appearances/things happen, this can be difficult to grasp, but not impossible.

You are introducing all sort of words but they [absolute, oneness, God, awareness(pure], etc.] are reducible to one fundamental thing, i.e.

Thing-in-itself or X-in-itself where 'X' can be anything.

This X-in-itself is an illusion which is merely a thought in your brain and mind.

The most easiest for you to convince the skeptic in your case is to bring the proofs [evidence or reasonable arguments] to justify your claim.
So far you have not provided any proofs nor reasonable arguments.

[TimeSeeker]

So, since you are all disagreeing (self-evident claim) on whether something is or isn’t an illusion, whether something is relative or absolute, then would that at least mean that you recognize Perspectivism as a problem to be solved before doing Philosophy; or do you recognise it as just another philosophical perspective?

If it is not a problem then do you interpret that as evidence for or against Perspectivism?

Is Perspectivism objectively and absolutely true?
How do you answer this without contradicting yourself?

Is the above argument circular OR recursive?
How do we decide that?

More questions without answers!

If a finite mind can grasp the concept of infinity - I think it needs a lesson in physics.

Infinities can only be grasped behaviouristically in the axiomatic framework of Mathematics i.e an open system.

Infinities in closed systems are a contradiction.

Philosophy could benefit from some systems thinking ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Systems_theory ) since logic/logos/language is itself a system.

In a way my perspective is Perspectivism in general.
I don't agree with there is something that is absolutely true. i.e. independent of human conditions.
Thus I don't claim Perspectivism is absolutely true.

I define objectivity as intersubjective consensus.
What is critical is we establish objectivity withing a defined perspective via intersubjective consensus of justified propositions.
For example there is objectivity within the scientific perspective, the legal perspective, etc.

I am for System Theory.
Note the Framework and SYSTEM of Morality and Ethics I had proposed in the other thread.

In the broadest of meanings - I agree with you (but we have to get to the particulars at some point). Either way - this is good enough to say then that objectivity is the product of observation/measurement, interpretation/deduction AND consensus. Which is broadly what the system of science is.

If both of us observe that perspectivism is subjectively true AND both of us agree to that then perspectivism is ‘objectively’ true within the system containing only two nodes: You and Me.

Lets expand this system and add another node: You <---> REALITY <----> Me

This is a system. A three-node system. Which is isomorphic to the Distributed consensus problem in computer science: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consensus ... r_science)

And we have various strategies for solving it:

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paxos_(computer_science)

• https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Raft_(computer_science)

[Dontaskme]

You are introducing all sort of words but they [absolute, oneness, God, awareness(pure], etc.] are reducible to one fundamental thing, i.e.

Thing-in-itself or X-in-itself where 'X' can be anything.

This X-in-itself is an illusion which is merely a thought in your brain and mind.

The most easiest for you to convince the skeptic in your case is to bring the proofs [evidence or reasonable arguments] to justify your claim.
So far you have not provided any proofs nor reasonable arguments.

What claim?

Do you ever read my posts? you seem to like parroting the same old responses over and over again.

What is 'aware' of the thought in the brain? what 'knows' there is a thought in the brain?

The illusion exists, its not impossible.

If there are no boundaries, then there are no parts of reality. In that sense, I am reality. And I'm also not "me" or "I"... simply "reality".

Reality is an illusion albeit a persistent one ~ Einstein

One exists, no matter how much you try to deny it VA..you simply have no argument except with yourself.



To deny existence is to create it in the same instant, to create existence is to negate it in the same instant...do you understand that?




.