Philosophy Now Forum

Beauty wrote:What does OP mean? I don't know, could someone tell me?

Dontaskme wrote:

Scott Mayers wrote: Without going into the depths of the actual Incompleteness Theorem, this should be enough to make you intuit that (1) NO SYSTEM OF RATIONAL INSPECTION can completely explain ALL truths AND that (2) NO SYSTEM OF RATIONAL INSPECTION can be used to justify itself. That the sentence above cannot 'prove' the truth of itself without being conflicting infinitely, suggests that we as observers trying to inspect whether we originate from anything BUT a 'something' rather than a nothing is not possible. Thus you cannot actually assume we are ONE because we are biased to only witness that. If you are not alive outside of life, you lack life to DISPROVE whether ONENESS is absolute or not

I love those well thought out thoughts. This is the kind of stuff I like to get my teeth into.

So Isn't the proof self evident though? ..but to whom is it self evident?

When....

There is no one here to make claim there is proof of oneness, just as there is no one here to make counter claim and disprove oneness?

How do we get past this dilemma Scott?

Dontaskme wrote:

HexHammer wrote:OP is pure nonsense and babble ..circular logic

That's because the mind is trying to catch a 'self' that doesn't exist apart from itself.



The eye sees everything except itself.

Dontaskme wrote:

Beauty wrote:What does OP mean? I don't know, could someone tell me?

The proof is in the pudding as the saying goes.

But who's tasting? can that be known, I don't think so...and yet it's tasted...

Beauty wrote:The eye has seen(observed/understood) itself first and only then can it begin to see the rest, or who is seeing?

Scott Mayers wrote: A 'dilemma' is basically the meaning of some supportive truth (a 'lemma') to be 'two-faced', which is just another way of saying something appears 'contradictory'. However, if we simply ACCEPT that 'contradiction' IS the cause or 'force' of reality itself, then it is alright for nature to BE contradictory. BUT it requires that reality derives FROM absolute nothing itself. This is because 'when' (a kind of trap since absolute nothing doesn't even mean 'time' exists there) absolute Nothing is "true", since this also means that 'truth' itself is without substance, the lawless nature of nothing has only to either remain BEING nothing, which 'contradicts' being 'consistent' (meaning to "stay the same as it is"), when it is "inconsistent". As such reality is caused by the nature of just what you interpret as ONENESS to be 'true' (because it is CONSISTENT), yet that if even 'a' nothing could exist, this cannot 'follow' from an ORIGIN of Absolute Oneness.

So you are correct to interpret reality as requiring being ONE but nature derives this as being 'true' only when oneness, nothingness, and infinity, all simultaneously exist. But only NOTHINGNESS is 'consistent' in that it justifies the causation of each of these independently. So reality is JUST the very struggle of trying to BE 'absolutely true' when it can't be at the same time. This perpetual contradiction IS the nature of Totality (that ONENESS that defines us all inclusively).

Scott Mayers wrote:I thank you too, by the way, because you appropriately take the correct skepticism needed to determine the problem. But don't expect others to easily follow. I still struggle but can only count on others like yourself to independently think the same way to connect. If WE are the crazy ones, so be it. It's probably better that way. (It's like being the ultimate magicians whom people believe might be doing 'tricks' when to the magician, he/she is NOT deluded....they are not 'tricks' to him, that is, only to the audience's perspective are they apparently "tricks". )

Beauty wrote:Thanks for enunciation of the abbreviation OP.
From a point of oneness reality cannot be perceived as we would be one with reality. So when we are other than the reality we are perceiving, then reality is perceived. Where we would be reality too, but that we perceive because of our mind which is separate from us and we have wireless connection to it. So because of the mind, separate from us, we perceive ourselves. Mind is like our spirit, so because of the spirit we perceive(know) ourselves, or we couldn't. So duality is always there for us to perceive reality outside of us and the reality inside of us and the reality that is us.

daramantus wrote: ↑Sat Dec 09, 2017 11:48 pm

TSBU wrote: ↑Wed Oct 05, 2016 12:45 pm

TSBU wrote:...And not, there isn't a "paradox" when you say that there is "I" and there is "the rest of the Universe". I is a concept too.

Greta wrote:I can't speak for my hand and fingers but I can sense my separateness from the environment, even though I intellectually know that I am part of it. Nonetheless, the separation is made clear by our senses. If I hurt, other people don't and vice versa. We don't see, hear or feel the same things - our senses are separate.

You can sense your separation of enviroment, and you can sense the separation between two dogs. But that's all part of the mental process, "you" is that process. Thinking is the process that happens between the time you get the input and the time you make an output. But, now that you go to subjetivism, I can say this: There are not just two options in what you call a paradox, I can solve what you see as a contradiction, maybe because "we don't see, hear or feel the same things" (and we don't have the same logic), there are cats, there are dogs, there is me, and there is a tree... and they are all part of the same, like hands and fingers. We make a separation (but that "we", the individual, is a separation itself) I can't explain better. So,now that it's said that I see it different, it's enough.

Greta wrote: We each only communicate with a small part of the universe. Most of it is so remote from us that it in effect only exists for us in abstract terms.

We can't "communicate" with Universe. And the part of the Universe wich is not "remote" exists for us in the same terms, that is, the only kind of terms, abstract terms.

Last post in this thread.

you is not a process, otherwise you wouldn't know aobut the process, and you wouldnt take a nootropics you would disappear. you have a process.

daramantus wrote: ↑Sat Dec 09, 2017 11:56 pm

Greta wrote: ↑Fri Oct 07, 2016 11:58 pm

Dontaskme wrote:
You might not believe me, but since awakening to oneness, I have absolutely no fear of death whatsoever. I know it's easier to say that but I really do not care about dying, because I know it's not real. I also know that any sane person is not going to believe that, but other peoples belief is not my concern. I already know my truth.

You only remember the memory of what you think you are.

Actually I remember that happened in my past (obviously!) along with family, friends, home, environment, music and art - the list does on.

Dontaskme wrote:Only the memory of you is having a life. A memory is not you, you are that which is aware of memory ..which is emptiness awareness. While you slept, the memory of you was temporally offline. But your real self (awareness) wasn't asleep, awareness does not sleep or wake up, it's always self shining and present right now.

Nope, my consciousness goes dormant. Quiet and minimal, reduced to unconscious reflex actions. Note that the "hard line" between unconscious and conscious mind is deceiving because consciousness is a variable continuum.

The "hard line" we perceive between the conscious and unconscious is due to the instability of inbetween states, so we tend to quickly fall between one or the other - either falling into sleep or full wakefulness, and that is how we spend most of our days and nights.

Stable and persistent inbetween states - mindless waking states - can be achieved either via flow (Zen) states or meditation. Waking flow states would seem to be the very opposite to sleep and dormancy - the ultimate in 'aliveness" - but, in truth, those desirable states are less conscious than thinking states. The very basis of those states is the relinquishing of conscious control, fearlessly trusting the body to operate in an automatic (and hopefully well trained) manner. I say "fearlessly" because it takes some courage to fully let go of conscious control; it's often a significant social risk.

Dontaskme wrote:If some one calls your name while you are in deep sleep, who do you think is awakening from that sleep? all that happens is the memory of you comes back online, the memory of you doesn't wake you up, the awareness of the memory of you wakes you up...so because what you really are is awareness .. you were able to hear your name called while the memory of you was offline...because awareness is always present, with or without you which is only ever memory... so the awareness of your name being called is what triggered the memory of you to come back online. Your consciousness is recording your life as it goes along, and then awareness is witnessing that recording. This life is all a dream. What you think is your life, is the dreamer awareness having a dream. When the dream is over,(physical death) awareness has another dream (physical life)..and just as no dream is ever remembered, awareness doesn't remember it's dreams, and is why each new dream (physical life) is totally unique and brand new...

I'm trying to put my finger on the logical error you are making. I think it's an overly strong self focus, which is ironic since that's what you are saying doesn't exist. Many try to pin down the self as either a spirit or an illusion. Those who claim the self doesn't exist tend to fall into two camps - pantheists like yourself or fundamentalist rationalists who claim consciousness (and the self) doesn't exist, only experiences.

It's all too black-and-white. The individual self is something that varies like a flame from moment to moment. At times it's smouldering, at other times a roaring blaze, but constantly changing. You may then wonder why I would say the self is real rather than the unstable phantasm I described? Practicality. As noted earlier, one of us can be happy while the other is in agony. That is, we might all be one, but our bodies impose separate realities.

Funny thing is that I argue a similar thing to you in terms of biology and also get criticised. Rather than the universe or the whole of reality, I think about the "oneness" of the biosphere, actually the entire planet. It can be thought of as one cohesive entity with a natural path that is similar in nature to that of its living inhabitants - to persist, grow and develop. Given humanity's space programs, it appears that the biosphere is on the way to spreading out elsewhere.

Still, why should I only consider oneness at the planetary scale? The solar system too can be thought of as one thing. Why stop there? There's galaxies, galactic clusters and superclusters. We can pan out until we arrive at your much-touted "oneness".

So there we are. All is one. One big thing - a universe, multiverse, or maybe something else. So, sure, I agree. However, in practical terms, we are separate. Each organism's mental processes are largely opaque to those of others. Each organism's pain and pleasure is restricted to itself and, in the case of intelligent mammals, only felt in part by others via empathy.

Dontaskme wrote:... oneness is far from boring...since every dream is unique, and is appearing just how it is designed to be, that being different every time around...there is a boundless eternity of experiences to be had in life.

A contradiction. If "every dream is unique" then they must be separate. In true oneness there is no uniqueness, only one uniform, entirely smooth thing. Each and every ripple or variation is a separation, a breaking up of the unity. And that, according to the boffins, is the story of our universe. At one point there was almost no separation at all. Now we are all spread out through space and time. We are still theoretically all one thing, but the bits are a long way from each other and, more importantly, largely don't give a damn about each other (or anything).

So there is a sense of, yes, all is oneness, but so what?

Dontaskme wrote:I don't know if you are able to grasp what I am saying, but it doesn't matter, it's what the sages call enlightenment, it is the death of the ego self and the subsequent awakening to oneness, but I cannot make you see or experience this by my words alone. It's experiential to the one who awakens.
I didn't get this for years and years of trying to understand it myself personally, it took me so long to figure this out with my mind, until one day it all clicked into place. It' not very easy to put into words though. But I'm getting better, I'm better at it than I used to be.

Contradictory. Since we are all one, if you are enlightened then so am I, and so is everyone and everything. However, we are different and, according to some arcane and unsubstantiated scale of human merit, we have attained different levels of "enlightenment".

You have to acknowledge separation, even if you don't like it. Personally, I like being separate.

is not one or two
oneness is a myth

daramantus wrote: ↑Sun Dec 10, 2017 12:03 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 10, 2017 12:00 am

daramantus wrote: ↑Sat Dec 09, 2017 11:56 pm

is not one or two
oneness is a myth

All number, as dimensions, are strictly the result of one reflecting itself ad-infinitum as one. All numbers are merely structural extensions of 1 as 1.

oneness is a myth , just like twoness, threness, it doesnt mean jack

daramantus wrote: ↑Sun Dec 10, 2017 12:21 am

Eodnhoj7 wrote: ↑Sun Dec 10, 2017 12:10 am

daramantus wrote: ↑Sun Dec 10, 2017 12:03 am

oneness is a myth , just like twoness, threness, it doesnt mean jack

Seriously.........? All myths are related in some degree of truth.......

WHy don't you start a chat with the moron called "dontaskme" , and then listen to his "oneness" theory, and you will understand nothing about anything about no one and how nonsense is this