Philosophy Now Forum

Lacewing wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2019 5:34 pm

Logik wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2019 6:39 am

Greta wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2019 4:14 am The question then comes from the OP, what might prompt people to be reluctant to give up their shields?

Fear of the unknown is the No.1 reason as far as I can tell.
The 2nd reason is diminishing returns - it's too much effort to change.

Combine those into fear of change and it's just another extinction vector.

Yes! We humans surely do seem to love what we think of as "known". And patterns! We adopt them, indoctrinate others, and then seem to worship those patterns... sometimes to the point that anything ELSE is "wrong" or even "evil". Even when the patterns are painful and stagnant.

I think of egos as wanting to be "right" and/or to control. So the unknown or alternatives are not usually welcome or explored. Which, of course, is very limited. Operating from ego can feel more powerful than the vulnerability of facing fear and the unknown... but it surely seems more of a weakness because it is dependent, and needs to be fed. Oh, and it blindly caters to itself.

True. Willingness to sacrifice sloth and safety which are defences of a timorous ego. Tribalism is one of the effects of timidity.

Age wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2019 12:00 pm If "you" want to stick with the 'ultimately', then great. Lets do it.

OK

Age wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2019 12:00 pm The "ouch" is a word already grasped and retained as thought. Whatever word use ("ouch" or any other word, swear word or not) comes from a 'thought'.

This is what thought tells you, right?
So, you are really sure a thought can come from thought?

Age wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2019 12:00 pm Just because the "you" does NOT recognize and/or see the thought (the thinking) BEFORE the spoken word...

The small "you" that is being referred here is a thought.
Can a thought (the small "you") recognise anything at all?

Age wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2019 12:00 pm ...that in no way infers that spoken words do NOT come from thought

Well... where does anything "come from"?
Where does pain come from, a thought, a sound... does it come from anywhere, from a location, from a thing?

Answer: No, it doesn't! It is all simply I/Self.

Age wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2019 12:00 pm In the times of when this is written human beings are really mostly "unconscious" (for lack of a better word) of thought, and of the actual power thought has. What people say has far more power over them then they actually realize YET.

People never say anything. Only I do.

Age wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2019 12:00 pm The actual language used to describe any thing, for example like a "beautiful" "sunset", had to come from thought.

No, it comes from ME (Is me and never leaves me)

Age wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2019 12:00 pm The saying "How wonderful" has to be there as a thought before it can just come out in spoken, or written, words. Whatever is SAID does NOT appear without first coming from a thought.

You believe in time?
In before and after?

Sounds like a belief...

Age wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2019 12:00 pm Even in YOUR example "you" have provided the actual EVIDENCE that A THOUGHT was THERE BEFORE 'the words are said. That "person" was THINKING "beautiful sunset" BEFORE saying "How wonderful!" OBVIOUSLY they would NOT have said "How wonderful!" IF they HAD NOT had a thought of "beautiful sunset" FIRST.

Do "persons" think?

Age wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2019 12:00 pm But HOW could words be spoken if they have NOT yet been obtained and withheld as 'thought' first?

How can you ride a bike without obtaining it "as thought" first?
A: Spontaneously.

Age wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2019 12:00 pm I am NOT sure why "you" the small, conditioned self, which THINKS that it is a separate self, is saying this.

The "you" the small, conditioned self does not think or say anything - it doesn't even exist.

Age wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2019 12:00 pm If there is NO actual separate one doing anything, then WHY are ALL of these apparent separate writings, with completely opposing views, coming from apparent separate ones? Are "you" able to explain WHAT is actually occurring here/now, and HOW this phenomena actually happens?

The key word is "apparent" - its not more than an interpretation that all these things are happening.
No, the "you" is not able to explain "WHAT is actually occurring here/now". There are interpretations arising, but they do not come from a "you". "you" is part of the interpretation.

Age wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2019 12:00 pm WHY do "you" propose that the collective and united I, also sometimes referred to as, Consciousness is NOT able to speak through human beings' voice boxes?

I haven't proposed that consciousness can't.

Age wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2019 12:00 pm Also, WHO/WHAT came to the realization to write what was written in "YOUR" quote here? And, did it only come to the forefront AFTER the 'thought' which produced the quote above it WHERE the writings under the label "alexw" gave two different answers from two different perspectives.

I did.
Thought happens, writing happens, "things" happen.
Is there a connection between the two? Thought says there is. Is thought correct? Is there any other proof than thought?

Age wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2019 12:00 pm If "you" want to KNOW which perspective is actually addressing "you" from, then do "you" also have to decide which perspective "you" are actually addressing the "me" from ALSO?

Again: "you" cant know anything.

Age wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2019 12:00 pm And, who/what is the "me" anyway? Which perspective is the "me" which "you" are going to decide which perspective "you" will address from?

Again: "you" is not deciding anything.
I am not addressing a "me" either.

Age wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2019 12:00 pm Surely there is ONE VERY SIMPLE and EASY way ALL of this could be EXPLAINED and UNDERSTOOD?

There really is nothing to be explained or understood. Be what you are - that's all.

Age wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2019 12:00 pm Can "you", whichever that one who is going to address this question is, EXPLAIN HOW and WHY just One thing WOULD cause things to HAPPEN and APPEAR the way they are HERE/NOW?

No - there is no "how or why".
I am not causing "things to HAPPEN" either.

Age wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2019 12:00 pm Also, did "you" NOTICE any contradiction in "your" own statement just now?

All statement are contradictory - its their nature. (including this one)

Age wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2019 12:00 pm If everything IS Consciousness, (including ALL labels/thoughts), then there is NO delusion any where.

Correct - there is none.

Age wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2019 12:00 pm the reason "they" and "you" ARE deluded is because "you" actually THINK and BELIEVE that "you" are separate human beings.

The above is a belief (you might better understand: This is "your" belief - even "you" can not have a belief - understood?).
Again: "you" or "they" can not think or believe anything. "they/you" IS a belief.

Age wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2019 12:00 pm When "you" human beings STOP being "egos" and transform beyond what those PERCEIVED things ARE, and become thee True Self, then the REASON for HOW and WHY Everything/the Universe IS the way It IS will be KNOWN, to "you" also.

Again: No, "you" cannot know anything, ONLY I CAN.

AlexW wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2019 6:37 am

Greta wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2019 4:14 amThe question then comes from the OP, what might prompt people to be reluctant to give up their shields?

Most people are not even aware that they carry a shield - hard to drop something when you don't even know that you carry it... even harder when you believe that you are it.

Good news is that it doesn't really have to be dropped - it's actually good enough to be aware of it - it will unravel on its own accord.

Alex, awareness is not enough if there's been long term conditioning. It takes time and, I think, determination to surrender a security blanket.

Logik wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2019 6:39 am

Greta wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2019 4:14 amThe question then comes from the OP, what might prompt people to be reluctant to give up their shields?

Fear of the unknown is the No.1 reason as far as I can tell.
The 2nd reason is diminishing returns - it's too much effort to change.

Combine those into fear of change and it's just another extinction vector.

Yes, you generally don't hold a shield if you think there's nothing to fear. As things stand, there's plenty to fear in a complex, overcrowded and hyper-competitive society with rapidly changing rules and social mores, and rapid and rabid responses to faux pas.

AlexW wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2019 11:25 pm

Age wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2019 12:00 pm If "you" want to stick with the 'ultimately', then great. Lets do it.

OK

Age wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2019 12:00 pm The "ouch" is a word already grasped and retained as thought. Whatever word use ("ouch" or any other word, swear word or not) comes from a 'thought'.

This is what thought tells you, right?

No. Thought does NOT tell Me any thing.

Thought is what is expressed through and from this human body.

If ant thought is correct or not, or partly correct, is a whole other matter. For all I KNOW absolutely EVERY thought that is expressed through and from this body could be COMPLETELY WRONG. But it is thought that is being expressed. The thought, itself, does NOT tell me any thing. I allow or do NOT allow thoughts to be expressed from this body.

Either the "ouch" word was already grasped and retained, as thought, within that body from which that word was expressed, or the "ouch" words was not. So, to "you" which one is it?

AlexW wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2019 11:25 pmSo, you are really sure a thought can come from thought?

A thought does NOT come from thought. A 'thought' IS a thought, obviously.

AlexW wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2019 11:25 pm

Age wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2019 12:00 pm Just because the "you" does NOT recognize and/or see the thought (the thinking) BEFORE the spoken word...

The small "you" that is being referred here is a thought.

Yes agreed.

AlexW wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2019 11:25 pmCan a thought (the small "you") recognise anything at all?

Although the small self, which is just the 'you', THINKS it knows things I would NOT say that that self recognizes things. (But this is the first time I have seen this question proposed and on first glance I would say no). However, if and when the True (big) Self informs the small self of what Is True and Right, then in a sense the small self would be far more AWARE/Conscious, and then in that sense the small sense might be able to recognize things as well as the Real Self can.

Agree, disagree? Why, why not?

AlexW wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2019 11:25 pm

Age wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2019 12:00 pm ...that in no way infers that spoken words do NOT come from thought

Well... where does anything "come from"?

EVERY thing does NOT, in a sense, come from any thing, as there is only the infinite HERE eternally NOW. There is NO other thing from which to come from.

If, however, 'We' want to LOOK AT; Where does anything "come from", from the sense of ALL the perceived things, then they ALL come from the one thing that is the Universe, Itself. Absolutely EVERY thing comes from the One Everything.

Either, or both, of these two perspectives 'We' can go into in much more thorough detail if so wished.

Is there agreement on either, both, or neither of these views?

AlexW wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2019 11:25 pmWhere does pain come from, a thought, a sound... does it come from anywhere, from a location, from a thing?

WHAT kind of pain? Physical pain, or emotional pain?

Physical pain, obviously, comes from the physical parts of the body, from the nerve endings to particular parts of body, where some sort of damage has occurred.

Emotional pain, however, comes from the "hurt" done to the personal small self, itself. Through some sort of thought/thinking there is an emotional reaction, which feels pain. Sometimes this pain can "hurt" far more than physical pain.

AlexW wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2019 11:25 pmAnswer: No, it doesn't! It is all simply I/Self.

Care to elaborate? Until "you" can explain, in VERY SIMPLE and EASY terms, how "It" is ALL simply I/Self, then to most people what "you" said here really does NOT make much sense at all. Although it is the absolute Truth if It is NOT being understood FULLY, even by "your own self", then really there is NO use in just expressing THIS in those terms.

Although 'It might ALL simply BE I/Self, I NEVER "hurt". I do NOT feel "pain".

The small self does, and "you" can and do express this "hurt", in degrees of "pain". But I certain do NOT hurt. I can very easily understand the pain and hurt that 'you', human beings feel. That is very understandable. "You" cry, moan, and whinge about what "pain" you are enough. So, it is clearly understood just how much "pain" and "suffering" 'you' human beings are living in now, when this is written.

AlexW wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2019 11:25 pm

Age wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2019 12:00 pm In the times of when this is written human beings are really mostly "unconscious" (for lack of a better word) of thought, and of the actual power thought has. What people say has far more power over them then they actually realize YET.

People never say anything. Only I do.

Well that 'I' says some very rather strange and peculiar things, at times. Agree?

WHY is this so? Why does that 'I' say things that contradict themselves? What is the purpose of that 'I' doing this?

Also, WHY would 'people' never say anything?

AlexW wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2019 11:25 pm

Age wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2019 12:00 pm The actual language used to describe any thing, for example like a "beautiful" "sunset", had to come from thought.

No, it comes from ME (Is me and never leaves me)

If that is what the "me" BELIEVES, then so be it.

Now, if "me" can explain in great detail, without being contradictory, without be clumsy, without being cumbersome, without being confusing, without being complex, then great, let US hear, once and for ALL, Who/What is 'Me'?

If 'me' does NOT yet know how to answer that in extremely EASY and SIMPLE terms where just about EVERY one can understand and agree with it, then just maybe 'me' has some more work to do in relation to ALL OF THIS.

AlexW wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2019 11:25 pm

Age wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2019 12:00 pm The saying "How wonderful" has to be there as a thought before it can just come out in spoken, or written, words. Whatever is SAID does NOT appear without first coming from a thought.

You believe in time?

No.

AlexW wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2019 11:25 pmIn before and after?

No.

There is NO before nor after. There is only NOW. Unless of course this is SHOWN to be Wrong, False, or Incorrect.

AlexW wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2019 11:25 pmSounds like a belief...

WHAT EXACTLY sounds like a belief?

Are you asking Me questions, and then answering them "your self"?

AlexW wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2019 11:25 pm

Age wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2019 12:00 pm Even in YOUR example "you" have provided the actual EVIDENCE that A THOUGHT was THERE BEFORE 'the words are said. That "person" was THINKING "beautiful sunset" BEFORE saying "How wonderful!" OBVIOUSLY they would NOT have said "How wonderful!" IF they HAD NOT had a thought of "beautiful sunset" FIRST.

Do "persons" think?

The absolute Truth is NO.

A 'person' is thee thought/emotion.

Thank you for pointing out and SHOWING where i am WRONG.

AlexW wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2019 11:25 pm

Age wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2019 12:00 pm But HOW could words be spoken if they have NOT yet been obtained and withheld as 'thought' first?

How can you ride a bike without obtaining it "as thought" first?
A: Spontaneously.

No. Quite simply with; PRACTICE.

Riding a bike is just a physical activity, done by a physical body.

Spoken word although it is a physical activity, done through a physical voice box in combination with a breathing physical human body, still originates from a THOUGHT first, though.

AlexW wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2019 11:25 pm

Age wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2019 12:00 pm I am NOT sure why "you" the small, conditioned self, which THINKS that it is a separate self, is saying this.

The "you" the small, conditioned self does not think or say anything - it doesn't even exist.

If "it" does NOT exist, then WHY is that the "alexw" 'I' is talking about "it" as though "it" does exist?

AlexW wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2019 11:25 pm

Age wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2019 12:00 pm If there is NO actual separate one doing anything, then WHY are ALL of these apparent separate writings, with completely opposing views, coming from apparent separate ones? Are "you" able to explain WHAT is actually occurring here/now, and HOW this phenomena actually happens?

The key word is "apparent" - its not more than an interpretation that all these things are happening.

That IS OBVIOUSLY WHY 'I' used the word 'apparent'. But that 'I' that wrote this was asked a question.

AlexW wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2019 11:25 pmNo, the "you" is not able to explain "WHAT is actually occurring here/now".

But 'I' CAN. Why can the "you" labeled under "alexw" NOT be able to do what 'I' CAN?

AlexW wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2019 11:25 pmThere are interpretations arising, but they do not come from a "you". "you" is part of the interpretation.

Agreed.

"you" IS just thee 'interpretation', and "you" have NOT yet discovered/learned HOW and WHY ALL things are occurring the way they ARE, and that is WHY "you" are unable to EXPLAIN things FULLY, yet.

'I' CAN. But "you" obviously CAN NOT.

AlexW wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2019 11:25 pm

Age wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2019 12:00 pm WHY do "you" propose that the collective and united I, also sometimes referred to as, Consciousness is NOT able to speak through human beings' voice boxes?

I haven't proposed that consciousness can't.

Fair enough.

Another great WRONG i have made, which you have HIGHLIGHTED here for US ALL. Thank you again.

AlexW wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2019 11:25 pm

Age wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2019 12:00 pm Also, WHO/WHAT came to the realization to write what was written in "YOUR" quote here? And, did it only come to the forefront AFTER the 'thought' which produced the quote above it WHERE the writings under the label "alexw" gave two different answers from two different perspectives.

I did.
Thought happens, writing happens, "things" happen.

Great. I agree with this.

Now, what is being used by 'I', through which thought happens and writing happens? Is it through human beings?

AlexW wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2019 11:25 pmIs there a connection between the two?

Is there actually 'two'?

AlexW wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2019 11:25 pmThought says there is.

But does thought say any thing really?

AlexW wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2019 11:25 pmIs thought correct?

Some times.

AlexW wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2019 11:25 pmIs there any other proof than thought?

Yes, of course. Agreement.

Thought, by itself, is NOT even proof in the first place. Thought, by definition, does NOT even know things, let alone be the proof of things.

AlexW wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2019 11:25 pm

Age wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2019 12:00 pm If "you" want to KNOW which perspective is actually addressing "you" from, then do "you" also have to decide which perspective "you" are actually addressing the "me" from ALSO?

Again: "you" cant know anything.

Yes I agree. I even just wrote the same thing in the last sentence.

Only thee I KNOWS.

AlexW wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2019 11:25 pm

Age wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2019 12:00 pm And, who/what is the "me" anyway? Which perspective is the "me" which "you" are going to decide which perspective "you" will address from?

Again: "you" is not deciding anything.
I am not addressing a "me" either.

THEN WHAT IS HAPPENING here now, exactly?

AlexW wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2019 11:25 pm

Age wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2019 12:00 pm Surely there is ONE VERY SIMPLE and EASY way ALL of this could be EXPLAINED and UNDERSTOOD?

There really is nothing to be explained or understood. Be what you are - that's all.

Okay, start explaining what "you" are.

AlexW wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2019 11:25 pm

Age wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2019 12:00 pm Can "you", whichever that one who is going to address this question is, EXPLAIN HOW and WHY just One thing WOULD cause things to HAPPEN and APPEAR the way they are HERE/NOW?

No - there is no "how or why".
I am not causing "things to HAPPEN" either.

So, "you" want to come here and tell "others" WHAT HAPPENS and WHAT TAKES PLACE, but "you" have absolutely NO idea of HOW nor WHY ALL OF THIS happens in the first place.

AlexW wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2019 11:25 pm

Age wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2019 12:00 pm Also, did "you" NOTICE any contradiction in "your" own statement just now?

All statement are contradictory - its their nature. (including this one)

So, WHY is that 'i' here, in this forum?

What is it that "you" are seeking or want?

AlexW wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2019 11:25 pm

Age wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2019 12:00 pm If everything IS Consciousness, (including ALL labels/thoughts), then there is NO delusion any where.

Correct - there is none.

But by "your" own writings "you" come across as being confused, deluded, and bewildered some times.

AlexW wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2019 11:25 pm

Age wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2019 12:00 pm the reason "they" and "you" ARE deluded is because "you" actually THINK and BELIEVE that "you" are separate human beings.

The above is a belief (you might better understand: This is "your" belief - even "you" can not have a belief - understood?).
Again: "you" or "they" can not think or believe anything. "they/you" IS a belief.

That is ONLY IF there is an actual "belief" in the first place.

IF there is NO belief, then the "you" can NOT be a belief, obviously.

AlexW wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2019 11:25 pm

Age wrote: ↑Fri Mar 22, 2019 12:00 pm When "you" human beings STOP being "egos" and transform beyond what those PERCEIVED things ARE, and become thee True Self, then the REASON for HOW and WHY Everything/the Universe IS the way It IS will be KNOWN, to "you" also.

Again: No, "you" cannot know anything, ONLY I CAN.

But I ALREADY KNOW ALL there is to KNOW.

The difference between the 'I' writing under the label of "age" and the 'I' writing under the label "alexw" IS:

'I' ("age") say that I KNOW how and why EVERY thing is the way It IS, and how and why EVERY thing works the way they do. And 'I' also say that explaining ALL OF THIS is really a very SIMPLE and EASY thing to do.

'I' ("alexw"), however, says that I KNOW there is NO how nor why to any thing. Full stop. That way there is nothing to question nor challenge in relation to that "I".

One 'I' is OPEN to be challenged, questioned, ridiculed, and SHOWN to be WRONG. Whereas, the "other" "i" is showing nothing but fear and its unknown. This "i" shows its BELIEFS and is closed to any thing other.

Greta wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2019 5:35 am Yes, you generally don't hold a shield if you think there's nothing to fear. As things stand, there's plenty to fear in a complex, overcrowded and hyper-competitive society with rapidly changing rules and social mores, and rapid and rabid responses to faux pas.

The irony of all ironies, of course, is that your shield is something to fear.

Abandoning adaptation because "fear of change" is a road to extinction. It's one of those "damned if you do - damned if you don't" scenarios.

Change is a universal constant so adapting to it is not only beneficial but necessary as well
And so I always try to accept change particularly that over which I have little or no control

Logik wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2019 6:48 am

Greta wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2019 5:35 am Yes, you generally don't hold a shield if you think there's nothing to fear. As things stand, there's plenty to fear in a complex, overcrowded and hyper-competitive society with rapidly changing rules and social mores, and rapid and rabid responses to faux pas.

The irony of all ironies, of course, is that your shield is something to fear.

Abandoning adaptation because "fear of change" is a road to extinction. It's one of those "damned if you do - damned if you don't" scenarios.

It's a balance. You need your shield because there really are threats out there - but hyper-reactivity is wasted energy and creates unrest that is not needed in already overheated and overcrowded societies.

Greta wrote:

It's a balance. You need your shield because there really are threats out there - but hyper-reactivity is wasted energy and creates unrest that is not needed in already overheated and overcrowded societies.

Yes. And reason governs both love and fear so thank goodness we have a natural fulcrum.

Belinda wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2019 11:13 am Greta wrote:

It's a balance. You need your shield because there really are threats out there - but hyper-reactivity is wasted energy and creates unrest that is not needed in already overheated and overcrowded societies.

Yes. And reason governs both love and fear so thank goodness we have a natural fulcrum.

Yes, I personally find reason and science to be grounding. Even as a young adult I was nervous about ghosts and whatnot.

The issue with ego is keeping it under control. The trouble with being proud is that, in a way the puffed up person taking the credit was not the same person who did those things to be proud of. Most of our lives' most enjoyable moments and best achievements come while our internal focus is dwarfed by our external focus.

Greta wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2019 12:44 pm Yes, I personally find reason and science to be grounding. Even as a young adult I was nervous about ghosts and whatnot.

The issue with ego is keeping it under control. The trouble with being proud is that, in a way the puffed up person taking the credit was not the same person who did those things to be proud of. Most of our lives' most enjoyable moments and best achievements come while our internal focus is dwarfed by our external focus.

Crazy idea ran through my head yesterday.

I am a social constructivist thorugh and through. To the degree that I claim that all logic/mathematics is INVENTED not discovered.
Logic is language. It's man-made.

And yet, I have worked my way to a moral position despite my Pyrrhonic ultra-skepticism, despite my Protagorean ultra-relativism, and despite my scientific nihilism.

I have worked myself to a perspective as to why the concept of God (just like the concept of Truth) is absolute fucking horseshit, yet a total pragmatic necessity for humanity.

It is SO that men like me, ultra-egoists/ultra-moralists, sanctimonious pricks, power-driven Nietzschean übermensch find an authority to subject ourselves to. A power greater than us to humble us.
So THAT we aren't a law unto ourselves. So that we find some symbol which represents the Greatest Good Love and Affection For Mankind.
You could go on and say "Mother Nature" is a better authority, but naaah - fuck nature. It's trying to kill us.

We CHOOSE to invent God in order to keep ourselves in check! Because the only authority I recognize is morality.

It's the only line/distinction that I am capable of drawing between myself and a violent psychopath. I am capable of the exact same violence. But I choose the righteous path instead.

Good essay from Logik I entirely agree.

Greta wrote:

Most of our lives' most enjoyable moments and best achievements come while our internal focus is dwarfed by our external focus.

Except for sensual moments ? Sensual moments however aren't achievements, or are they?

Logik wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2019 2:34 pm It is SO that men like me, ultra-egoists/ultra-moralists, sanctimonious pricks, power-driven Nietzschean übermensch find an authority to subject ourselves to. A power greater than us to humble us.
So THAT we aren't a law unto ourselves. So that we find some symbol which represents the Greatest Good Love and Affection For Mankind.

I see the logic in that. At the same time, I can see the creation of "god" as a puppet behind a curtain, that man gets to animate and speak for. Such ultra-egos aren't actually humbled at all... they're exalted through their "knowing" of some god! I imagine that most of the people who go to a place of worship and look to a god are already decent, moral people. Perhaps they are mainly looking for comfort in thinking that something grand is watching over them and helping them find answers.

Maybe ancient people used the concept of gods to explain life with all of its mysteries and connections and powerful forces. But beyond that, it seems that the idea of "a god"... supremely over all... was created by the ego of man. A "cover" for man's ultimate power orchestrations.

People who prefer integrity , exude that even without any god. People who prefer control, exude that regardless of a god.

It doesn't make sense to me that all of the crazy crap we create must also include something to be created by us to stop us from creating crazy crap. It seems more likely to me that god is a tool for some additional aim of the ego.

Age wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2019 6:00 am Thought is what is expressed through and from this human body.

Sounds like a belief.
How do you know that?
Does thought tell you that? Does the "body"? How do you experience something being "expressed through this human body"?
If a thought arises - does it really arise "from a body"?

Age wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2019 6:00 am Either the "ouch" word was already grasped and retained, as thought, within that body from which that word was expressed, or the "ouch" words was not. So, to "you" which one is it?

There is nothing that is anything to "you/me". "you/me" is a thought/concept - a concept has no knowledge - it is known.

Age wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2019 6:00 am Although the small self, which is just the 'you', THINKS it knows things

The small self doesn't think. The "small self" IS only an idea. Can ideas think?

Age wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2019 6:00 am However, if and when the True (big) Self informs the small self of what Is True and Right

Again, there is NO small self. Thus it can not be "informed" by anything (e.g. the True Self).
The small self is only an idea. Can an idea be informed by anything?

Age wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2019 6:00 am then in a sense the small self would be far more AWARE/Conscious, and then in that sense the small sense might be able to recognize things as well as the Real Self can.

Again: No, the small self is an idea/belief - it can NOT be "more aware", it can NOT "recognize things".

Age wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2019 6:00 am Physical pain, obviously, comes from the physical parts of the body, from the nerve endings to particular parts of body

How do you know you have a body? What tells you that a certain sensation comes "from a part of the body"?
Does the sensation itself contain this information? Or is there simply a thought offering up this information?

Age wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2019 6:00 am EVERY thing does NOT, in a sense, come from any thing, as there is only the infinite HERE eternally NOW

Agree - this also implies that "there are no things" - there is only I - right?

Age wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2019 6:00 am Emotional pain, however, comes from the "hurt" done to the personal small self

Can an idea be hurt?

Age wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2019 6:00 am Until "you" can explain, in VERY SIMPLE and EASY terms

A "you" will never be able to explain anything - "you" is only an idea - can an idea explain anything?

Age wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2019 6:00 am what "you" said here really does NOT make much sense at all

There still seems to be a belief at work that a "you"/small self could say something or explain something. Is this the case?

Age wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2019 6:00 am If that is what the "me" BELIEVES, then so be it.

Again: A "me" doesn't believe anything.

Age wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2019 6:00 am Now, if "me" can explain in great detail, without being contradictory, without be clumsy, without being cumbersome, without being confusing, without being complex, then great, let US hear

But "me" cant explain anything.

Age wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2019 6:00 am WHAT EXACTLY sounds like a belief?

You said: "Whatever is SAID does NOT appear without first coming from a thought."
This sounds like a belief.
A belief is everything that is thought of and considered to be true.
Or are there some thoughts that are truer than others? If there seem to be some, then what decides about the level of truth (of a thought)?

Age wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2019 6:00 am If "it" does NOT exist, then WHY is that the "alexw" 'I' is talking about "it" as though "it" does exist?

"alexw" is not 'I'
Only I can talk.

I (normally) talk as if "alexw" exists to accomodate the idea that there is such an entity - it is how language works - its a convention, not truth.

Age wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2019 6:00 am But 'I' CAN. Why can the "you" labeled under "alexw" NOT be able to do what 'I' CAN?

Yes, 'I' can.
But the "you" labeled under "alexw" can NOT do what 'I' CAN because only I can "do" anything (even doing is somehow misleading - as I don't actually do anything, at least not in the sense of the word)

Age wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2019 6:00 am 'I' CAN. But "you" obviously CAN NOT.

Agree.

Age wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2019 6:00 am But I ALREADY KNOW ALL there is to KNOW.

Agree

Age wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2019 6:00 am The difference between the 'I' writing under the label of "age" and the 'I' writing under the label "alexw" IS:

There are no different "I"'s
The label is a label, it cant write.

Age wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2019 6:00 am 'I' ("age") say that I KNOW how and why EVERY thing is the way It IS

Which one says that? "I" or "age"?
Can "age" know or say anything at all?

Age wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2019 6:00 am 'I' ("alexw"), however, says that I KNOW there is NO how nor why to any thing. Full stop. That way there is nothing to question nor challenge in relation to that "I".

"alexw", the label, doesn't ever say anything.
Whats wrong with "there is NO how nor why to any thing"? What benefit do "I" have from an explanation of anything? Does it make "anything" clearer? Or does it actually complicate it?
By explaining my Self, I complicate my Self.

Age wrote: ↑Sat Mar 23, 2019 6:00 am One 'I' is OPEN to be challenged, questioned, ridiculed, and SHOWN to be WRONG. Whereas, the "other" "i" is showing nothing but fear and its unknown. This "i" shows its BELIEFS and is closed to any thing other.

Again: There are no different "I"'s.
That I can be "challenged, questioned, ridiculed, and SHOWN to be WRONG" is a belief that should be investigated.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2019 6:07 pm I see the logic in that. At the same time, I can see the creation of "god" as a puppet behind a curtain, that man gets to animate and speak for.

Or a puppeteer behind a curtain

Lacewing wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2019 6:07 pm Such ultra-egos aren't actually humbled at all... they're exalted through their "knowing" of some god!

True - knowing that the idea is made up. A mere instrument, I am not sure how effective it can be. On me anyway.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2019 6:07 pm I imagine that most of the people who go to a place of worship and look to a god are already decent, moral people. Perhaps they are mainly looking for comfort in thinking that something grand is watching over them and helping them find answers.

Yeah. Society watches over them. Maybe even those who invented God.

Lacewing wrote: ↑Sun Mar 24, 2019 6:07 pm It doesn't make sense to me that all of the crazy crap we create must also include something to be created by us to stop us from creating crazy crap. It seems more likely to me that god is a tool for some additional aim of the ego.

The concept of "The Greater Good" is functionally equivalent to the notion of God.

Our legal systems constantly justify their own actions "for the greater good".

Is just language.