Philosophy Now Forum

AlexW wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 11:47 am I am happy to discuss this with you, but if all you can do is swear, then we are not going to get anywhere... are you really that insecure that you need rude words to cover your fear of potentially being wrong?

Frankly I'm done being nice to narcissistic idiots who come to philosophy forums. If you can't handle the truth then don't comment.

Well then... what exactly is this truth that you know?

AlexW wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 1:00 pm Well then... what exactly is this truth that you know?

The 'I am'/being/Brahman or whatever we want to call it, doesn't come with an in-built blissfullness etc. quality. Didn't I already say this multiple times?

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 1:46 pm

AlexW wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 1:00 pm Well then... what exactly is this truth that you know?

The 'I am'/being/Brahman or whatever we want to call it, doesn't come with an in-built blissfullness etc. quality. Didn't I already say this multiple times?

Ok... then... What does it "come with"? If it comes with "nothing", then how do you know its not just an idea, a belief that you cherish?
Also ... is being/Brahman the same as awareness?
And how does direct experience relate to it? What exactly is the direct experience of *taste of apple* or *wind on skin*?

See ... I attempt to talk only from what I can and have actually directly experienced. I try to avoid (as much as possible) all deduction that is purely based on conceptual interpretations.
And as "happiness/love/bliss" is a description that comes closest to what is left when all mental as well as sensory perception leaves, this is what I call pure Being/Brahman... its the same for anything that is being experienced: we name it, use words and, in a way, "defile" it. The description *wind on skin* is not the sensation - the sensation is perfectly empty (just like "I am"), yet we still name it (and attempt to turn it into an object - which it is not).
I do the same with being/Brahman (and I am by far not the first one to do this) - simply because of the way it feels when only pure Being is left. You might find that idiotic and narcissistic ... to me it is basic honesty about what I feel/experience.

seeds wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2020 7:16 pm However, if you will just include the fact that the Bible also asserts that humans (more specifically, the human mind and soul) are created in the image of God,...

AlexW wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 2:59 am Sure... and I wouldn't stop there.
I would say that everything - not only "the human mind and soul" - is created in the image of God ... which leads us to: everything (which is real) IS God.

I agree with you that everything of this universe is an aspect of God’s being, but no, Alex, a sun, or a planet, or an apple are no more created in the image of God than the apple you may have experienced in a dream last night is created in your image.

Of course it is undeniable that the dream apple is a part of you in that it is created from the living fabric of your very own inner being. However, it is not something that can be said to be a representation of your ultimate form.

Again, as I suggested in my earlier illustration...



...whatever it is that your “I Am” truly is, it exists “above and outside” of the fabric of your thoughts and dreams, yet possesses total control over the fabric.

AlexW wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 2:59 am The question is only: What is real and what is imagined?

Well, as I have stated elsewhere in this forum, I suggest that anything that resides on the opposite side of absolute nothingness is “real” in some context or another (be it objective, subjective, phenomenal, noumenal, emanant, transcendent, or any other imaginable [or unimaginable] state of being).

In other words, if it is not relegated to the domain of pure and utter nothingness, it can therefore be considered as being comprised of some kind of “real” - (as in existing) - essence or substance.

(Continued in next post)
_______

_______

(Continued from prior post)

AlexW wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 2:59 am To me, everything that can be directly experienced is real - and whatever can only be imagined is "unreal" (or ratherL not more than an idea, belief or conceptual interpretation).

We’ve covered this before, Alex.

The irony of your statement is that when you encounter an apple within the context of a vivid dream, the experience is even more “direct” than the experience of an apple that you encounter out in the universe.

Why?

Because the multi-sensory features and properties of the phenomena you experience within the context of a dream do not go through the intermediary process of being filtered through material eyes, skin, ears, nose, and tongue,...

...all of which are but mere “windows” through-which your inwardly based senses can access the outer world of the universe – an outer world of reality that, if Berkeleyanism is valid, is the inner world of a higher Being’s mind.

In other words, that which is “objective” reality to us in this universe is “subjective” reality to God.

Now, granted, a dream apple is not as highly rendered and resolved as one of God’s apples. Nevertheless, the point is that the experience of a dream apple is, again, more “direct” (relative to the mind’s eye) than the experience of an earth apple.

seeds wrote: ↑Fri Oct 02, 2020 7:16 pm ...then you will realize why it is logical to conclude that God also possesses an individual, self-aware, Cartesian “I Am-ness” (just like we do).

AlexW wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 2:59 am Well... the question is:
What exactly is this "we" you are referring to? What is it that is self-aware? And what does it mean to actually be self aware?

I suggest that not unlike so-called “dark energy” and “dark matter” are invisible to physicists, likewise, the self (or the agent that sits at the throne of our consciousness) is also invisible.

Indeed, the agent that sits at the throne of our consciousness is an invisible, yet self-aware entity...

(as in “knows” that it is alive, and is self-reflectively aware of its own existence)

...who at one moment can be peering out through the dark circular window in the image below...



...in order to observe and experience the multi-sensory features of the aforementioned earth apple,...

...while in the very next moment can willfully (and literally) pull the shade down on that window and redirect its attention inward in order to observe and experience the multi-sensory features of a dream apple,...

...(or of absolutely anything else it wishes to create out of the informationally-based, holographic-like mental fabric of its own inner being - just as God [again, in whose image we are created] has done with his inner being).

Now just to be clear as to what I am suggesting, if we use Berkeleyanism as a model for reality,...

(and I do realize that that’s a big if)

...then everything you see in the image below...



...(the blue iris; the glass-like window of the pupil; the white of the sclera; the surrounding skin and eye lashes, etc.) all belong to God and are all constructed from the mental fabric of God's personal being.

However, our own minds (and their contents) belong exclusively to us, of which I furthermore suggest that at the moment of death, we will discover that we are a familial replication of God who are each imbued with the same potential as God himself – as is depicted in yet another of my fanciful illustrations:



It may be difficult to read the captioning, but what God is saying in the first bubble is an ever-so-slightly paraphrased verse from the Bible:

“I shall change your vile body, that it may be fashioned like unto my glorious body, according to the working whereby I am able even to subdue all things unto myself.” – (Philippians 3:21, KJV)

And in the second bubble:

“You shall be neither male or female, but a balanced blend bearing the best of both. You shall be ‘whole’ and ‘completed’ as I Am.”

In closing, the three “eyes” depicted in the above illustration are a metaphorical representation of the “I Am(s)” we’ve been talking about. And if you multiply those three “I Am(s)” by what could possibly be a near infinite number, then you will also know what the word “we” is referring to.
_______

seeds wrote: ↑Sun Oct 04, 2020 12:41 am I agree with you that everything of this universe is an aspect of God’s being, but no, Alex, a sun, or a planet, or an apple are no more created in the image of God

I am not sure why you differentiate between "aspect of God's being" and "created in the image of God".
To me, these are just two sides of the same coin.

seeds wrote: ↑Sun Oct 04, 2020 12:41 am However, it is not something that can be said to be a representation of your ultimate form.

There is no ultimate form otherwise the ultimate would be limited, which it is not.

seeds wrote: ↑Sun Oct 04, 2020 12:41 am Again, as I suggested in my earlier illustration...

Nice drawing! Looks good, but not sure what to make of it...

seeds wrote: ↑Sun Oct 04, 2020 12:41 am ...whatever it is that your “I Am” truly is, it exists “above and outside” of the fabric of your thoughts and dreams

Not as I see it - everything that is real arises in "I am", as such there is nothing “above or outside”.

seeds wrote: ↑Sun Oct 04, 2020 12:41 am Well, as I have stated elsewhere in this forum, I suggest that anything that resides on the opposite side of absolute nothingness is “real” in some context or another

Well... everything is real in "some context". The question is: what is real outside of all contexts?

seeds wrote: ↑Sun Oct 04, 2020 12:43 am The irony of your statement is that when you encounter an apple within the context of a vivid dream, the experience is even more “direct” than the experience of an apple that you encounter out in the universe.

No... I have never experienced an object "apple" (not in the waking state or in dreams)

seeds wrote: ↑Sun Oct 04, 2020 12:43 am In other words, that which is “objective” reality to us in this universe is “subjective” reality to God.

There is no "objective reality" - objectivity is not more than an idea.

seeds wrote: ↑Sun Oct 04, 2020 12:43 am I suggest that not unlike so-called “dark energy” and “dark matter” are invisible to physicists, likewise, the self (or the agent that sits at the throne of our consciousness) is also invisible.

Indeed, the agent that sits at the throne of our consciousness is an invisible, yet self-aware entity...

If you like to believe this is true... fine... I do not.
Running out of time - will comment on rest later.

AlexW wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 10:48 pm

Atla wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 1:46 pm

AlexW wrote: ↑Sat Oct 03, 2020 1:00 pm Well then... what exactly is this truth that you know?

The 'I am'/being/Brahman or whatever we want to call it, doesn't come with an in-built blissfullness etc. quality. Didn't I already say this multiple times?

Ok... then... What does it "come with"? If it comes with "nothing", then how do you know its not just an idea, a belief that you cherish?
Also ... is being/Brahman the same as awareness?
And how does direct experience relate to it? What exactly is the direct experience of *taste of apple* or *wind on skin*?

See ... I attempt to talk only from what I can and have actually directly experienced. I try to avoid (as much as possible) all deduction that is purely based on conceptual interpretations.
And as "happiness/love/bliss" is a description that comes closest to what is left when all mental as well as sensory perception leaves, this is what I call pure Being/Brahman... its the same for anything that is being experienced: we name it, use words and, in a way, "defile" it. The description *wind on skin* is not the sensation - the sensation is perfectly empty (just like "I am"), yet we still name it (and attempt to turn it into an object - which it is not).
I do the same with being/Brahman (and I am by far not the first one to do this) - simply because of the way it feels when only pure Being is left. You might find that idiotic and narcissistic ... to me it is basic honesty about what I feel/experience.

After we've eliminated the conceptual-ego, we need to eliminate the feeling-ego as well. Believing that Being feels like anything, is still chasing the ego, it's pretty idiotic and narcissistic. We tell others that they don't get what Being is, that they need to snap out of the ego, yet we continue to cling to the feeling-ego all the same. We even tend to turn our backs to the world, believing that this feeling-ego is what existence is really about, and often adopt a high-ground based on that.

At least that's how most 'nondualists' end up. I find that a pretty disgusting and antisocial practice, a one-upmanship. Bliss is good when handled properly, personally I can turn bliss on and off almost any time I want too, but people need to get this narcissism beaten out of them.

That's not genuine nondualism, just a perversion of it. In genuine nondualism, the Brahman is empty, it doesn't 'come with' anything. Brahman is all of existence, including awareness, and the taste of apple etc. they don't 'relate'. Also, there are at least two kinds of awareness. The eternal first-person-view is the 'I am', or in other words existence itself. Any awareness that feels like anything is however still ego, that's the human self-awareness, the psychological thing in the human head.

That's why I keep saying that nondualism has two awakenings, but many people, especially those that take the Advaita route, get stuck in limbo between the two and go nuts.

Oh yeah, we can't ever be absolutely sure of the correctness of any worldview, not even of the direct experience based nondualism. Yes it's almost certainly correct and can't be falsified. But claiming that direct experience gives certainty is just another form of self-serving narcissistic oneupmanship.

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Oct 04, 2020 5:37 am After we've eliminated the conceptual-ego, we need to eliminate the feeling-ego as well.

Sorry, but I don't agree - there is no reason to eliminate anything, not even the ego.
For me, its good enough to see and understand the workings of the ego - and (most of the time) not buy into its antics.
Its not more than a collection of ideas and beliefs, some harmful, but others actually useful (and some even necessary for survival in this world).

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Oct 04, 2020 5:37 am Believing that Being feels like anything, is still chasing the ego

Again, no... As you also said: Brahman/Being is all of existence, including awareness, and the taste of apple
Just because "taste of apple" feels like something, this has nothing to do with ego. Its rather a bit strange to insist that it doesn't feel like something...
And why should the state of a perfectly quiet mind not also feel like something? If it feels good/blissful, why deny it?
Its simply the human condition to feel - everything feels like something. And to state that Being (in the absolute sense) doesn't feel like anything (eg cannot be experienced) might be true, but its still only speculation (attempting to define a "state" that one has never experienced - or rather: that one cannot experience - is not more than fiction).

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Oct 04, 2020 5:37 am We tell others that they don't get what Being is

I don't think I have ever done that...
I normally simply say: Take a sip of tea, taste an apple ... forget all conceptual interpretations ... There! Thats Being! Its as simple as that!

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Oct 04, 2020 5:37 am At least that's how most 'nondualists' end up. I find that a pretty disgusting and antisocial practice, a one-upmanship

What I find wrong, is to tell people something that they can not confirm within their own direct experience ... for example that Being/Brahman doesn't feel like anything. How would that help anyone? It would mean that no matter what one experiences, its not IT ... while actually the opposite is true.

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Oct 04, 2020 5:37 am Any awareness that feels like anything is however still ego, that's the human self-awareness

Again, i don't see it like that - just because something feels a special way, its not ego or human self-awareness.

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Oct 04, 2020 5:37 am Oh yeah, we can't ever be absolutely sure of the correctness of any worldview, not even of the direct experience based nondualism. Yes it's almost certainly correct and can't be falsified. But claiming that direct experience gives certainty is just another form of self-serving narcissistic oneupmanship.

Well... its the only certainty one has... one can be uncertain of an interpretation of *taste of apple*, but to be uncertain about the experience itself is slightly insane... no?

AlexW wrote: ↑Mon Oct 05, 2020 3:30 am

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Oct 04, 2020 5:37 am After we've eliminated the conceptual-ego, we need to eliminate the feeling-ego as well.

Sorry, but I don't agree - there is no reason to eliminate anything, not even the ego.
For me, its good enough to see and understand the workings of the ego - and (most of the time) not buy into its antics.
Its not more than a collection of ideas and beliefs, some harmful, but others actually useful (and some even necessary for survival in this world).

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Oct 04, 2020 5:37 am Believing that Being feels like anything, is still chasing the ego

Again, no... As you also said: Brahman/Being is all of existence, including awareness, and the taste of apple
Just because "taste of apple" feels like something, this has nothing to do with ego. Its rather a bit strange to insist that it doesn't feel like something...
And why should the state of a perfectly quiet mind not also feel like something? If it feels good/blissful, why deny it?
Its simply the human condition to feel - everything feels like something. And to state that Being (in the absolute sense) doesn't feel like anything (eg cannot be experienced) might be true, but its still only speculation (attempting to define a "state" that one has never experienced - or rather: that one cannot experience - is not more than fiction).

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Oct 04, 2020 5:37 am We tell others that they don't get what Being is

I don't think I have ever done that...
I normally simply say: Take a sip of tea, taste an apple ... forget all conceptual interpretations ... There! Thats Being! Its as simple as that!

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Oct 04, 2020 5:37 am At least that's how most 'nondualists' end up. I find that a pretty disgusting and antisocial practice, a one-upmanship

What I find wrong, is to tell people something that they can not confirm within their own direct experience ... for example that Being/Brahman doesn't feel like anything. How would that help anyone? It would mean that no matter what one experiences, its not IT ... while actually the opposite is true.

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Oct 04, 2020 5:37 am Any awareness that feels like anything is however still ego, that's the human self-awareness

Again, i don't see it like that - just because something feels a special way, its not ego or human self-awareness.

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Oct 04, 2020 5:37 am Oh yeah, we can't ever be absolutely sure of the correctness of any worldview, not even of the direct experience based nondualism. Yes it's almost certainly correct and can't be falsified. But claiming that direct experience gives certainty is just another form of self-serving narcissistic oneupmanship.

Well... its the only certainty one has... one can be uncertain of an interpretation of *taste of apple*, but to be uncertain about the experience itself is slightly insane... no?

I can't believe it's that hard to actually follow and address what I'm saying. whatever

Atla wrote: ↑Mon Oct 05, 2020 6:23 pmwhatever

Agree - whatever

bahman wrote: ↑Sat Sep 26, 2020 10:33 pm Everybody is himself/herself so they can say I am who I am. Interestingly this phrase doesn't give more than any obvious information. I am wondering why people consider this as a definition of God.

If this is the quote for the bible, it's: "I am that I am", not "I am who I am." Self is not a definable identity, it is the Absolute that requires nothing relative to it to reaffirm it's existence.

It's the same as: "I and the Father are one" - Christ, and: "The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao. The name that can be named is not the eternal name. The nameless is the beginning of heaven and earth. The named is the mother of ten thousand things." - Lao Tzu

Realizing such is the conclusion of suffering.

Atla wrote: ↑Sun Oct 04, 2020 5:37 am Oh yeah, we can't ever be absolutely sure of the correctness of any worldview, not even of the direct experience based nondualism. Yes it's almost certainly correct and can't be falsified. But claiming that direct experience gives certainty is just another form of self-serving narcissistic oneupmanship.

Direct experience is an oxymoron.

Certain knowledge is 'knowledge-by-identity' for which the knower becomes one with its object. There is no other form of certain knowledge. I think even Aristotle says this somewhere. It is a fact of epistemology. Thus meditation takes us beyond experience to knowledge and truth.

A poem on youtube by Bernardo Kastrup begins 'All experiences are untrue'. This is what he means.

Basic stuff.

AlexW wrote: ↑Mon Sep 28, 2020 2:08 am Maybe you wonder because your quote is incorrect - it should say: I am THAT I am (and not: I am WHO I am).
When God was saying: "I am THAT I am" he told Moses that he is the fundamental/basic "I am" (and not an individual, not a being separate from existence, but rather this very existence itself)
It is as such an impersonal "I am", not a "WHO", which would point to a separate individual existence.

This is also why it says in Psalm 46: "Be still and know that I am (is) God."
Unfortunately the "is" is left out in many translations, which is a mistake, as it departs from the real message - it should read: "Be still and know that I am IS God"

Seemed worth requoting.