Philosophy Now Forum

Posted: **Tue May 26, 2020 4:35 am**

DaM

Is life worth living?

For those caught psychologically attached to the world and they are good responsible people, then it is worth living. But you strike me as a sensitive soul who needs a greater experience of meaning than what the flat worm is capable of. Consider those who have had experiences Socrates describes. Are they worth being ridiculed or even psychologically killed by secular experts?

[Socrates] And if there were a contest, and he had to compete in measuring the shadows with the prisoners who had never moved out of the cave, while his sight was still weak, and before his eyes had become steady (and the time which would be needed to acquire this new habit of sight might be very considerable) would he not be ridiculous? Men would say of him that up he went and down he came without his eyes; and that it was better not even to think of ascending; and if any one tried to loose another and lead him up to the light, let them only catch the offender, and they would put him to death.

But a person having had such experiences eventually feels the human need to give to the flat worm to begin to awaken those who feel the quality of meaning more than what the world offers. But there will be hell to pay. They will feel the duty to become part of society as an awakening influence rather than just escaping in the belief that conscious humanity has no meaning. But the most hated of all machines is the alarm clock and ideas of a certain quality must be condemned as disturbing the peace. All one has to do is consider the efforts of Jesus and Socrates to understand how violently awakening must be rejected but needed by those with the same light which can begin to shine. Such people are very rare but do exist.

Posted: **Tue May 26, 2020 3:56 pm**

Nick_A wrote: ↑Tue May 26, 2020 4:35 am DaM

Is life worth living?
For those caught psychologically attached to the world and they are good responsible people, then it is worth living. But you strike me as a sensitive soul who needs a greater experience of meaning than what the flat worm is capable of. Consider those who have had experiences Socrates describes. Are they worth being ridiculed or even psychologically killed by secular experts?

[Socrates] And if there were a contest, and he had to compete in measuring the shadows with the prisoners who had never moved out of the cave, while his sight was still weak, and before his eyes had become steady (and the time which would be needed to acquire this new habit of sight might be very considerable) would he not be ridiculous? Men would say of him that up he went and down he came without his eyes; and that it was better not even to think of ascending; and if any one tried to loose another and lead him up to the light, let them only catch the offender, and they would put him to death.
But a person having had such experiences eventually feels the human need to give to the flat worm to begin to awaken those who feel the quality of meaning more than what the world offers. But there will be hell to pay. They will feel the duty to become part of society as an awakening influence rather than just escaping in the belief that conscious humanity has no meaning. But the most hated of all machines is the alarm clock and ideas of a certain quality must be condemned as disturbing the peace. All one has to do is consider the efforts of Jesus and Socrates to understand how violently awakening must be rejected but needed by those with the same light which can begin to shine. Such people are very rare but do exist.

I have to be honest with you Nick.

I really don't know anything about God, nor do I know anything about myself, except to know that ''I AM'', and that's as far as it goes for me...I have no other answers regarding anything else except to maybe throw in some knowledge that is already available to me, a story that I either resonate with or reject, and maybe add to this tree of knowledge with something that is of my own personal creation. Apart from the story. I have no idea about anything. I like to think that my personal knowledge about myself is more akin to that of a goldfish just swimming around in water all day, and that's it.

I also like to think that everything is God which for me, is just another word for Life.
Knowing I AM is an Awakening in and of itself, because it informs me that I am aware I am aware. Everything else is just a story rolling around within a sea of thoughts. So for me, I was able to see that I had no personal self, and that the self I had been conditioned to believe existed was just an add on, it was just a concept..or idea. So it then seemed obvious to me that every thought I attached myself to was just an idea upon the I AM that I AM ..and I have no idea what an idea is...except what seems to be magically pulled out of the ethers.

Knowing nothing is to me like the innocence of childhood before the sense of I and other kicks in. The denfinition of 'ego death' to me was the 'great awakening', it was the loss of the separate I - this is the only death that can be known. And the death of I is also the loss of the knowledge of ever being born, ...and that to me, was the entrance into nonduality, the only real reality. We cannot experience death, but we can experience not-knowing which to me is the same thing, death is not-knowing while you live, and you also live not-knowing you live, which is the divine paradox.

In the dream world of duality Life is an entirely different ball park all together..

I'm rather liking this quote...at the moment.

Ecclesiastes 4:2-3 : And I declared that the dead, who had already died, are happier than the living, who are still alive. But better than both is the one who has never been born, who has not seen the evil that is done under the sun.

My ideal world within the dream of separation would be for every human being to be like Jesus. But that is not going to happen any time soon, if ever. And so I think once one has awakened from the dream, it's the end of knowledge, it's back to the garden of innocence for that awakened one, they are in the world but no longer of it. That to me seems more sensible, and the likely reason to awaken in the first place.. While everything else just carries on as it has always done, the same as it ever is, was, which is nothing more than a giant vanity project, repeating itself over and over again going nowhere, until this shit show is seen through for the stupid game it is ...so then once it is seen through, one can just slip away, and hardly anyone ever notices you have gone because you are still here, except your not here in the way they think you are.

Now obviously we all see the world differently and have our own unique ideas and beliefs about reality according to our personal experiences,and cultural circumstances. So even trying to discuss anything philosophical or metaphorical with others is a total distraction from your own true self beingness, because we all think different things and in many different ways, and those things are usually about our own direct experiences that are unique to us only. So sharing our direct experiences with others is all we can do, it's an ok thing to do, but then to be arguing with others over who is speaking sense or who is speaking nonsense is just a really pointless exercise, because most people are only ever talking from their own experience anyway. We can only ever experience what is our own experience, so there is no point in denying anyone else their own experience by aruging it, or debunking it, or trying to refute it...to me, that is just so energy draining, unecessary and futile.

Posted: **Wed May 27, 2020 2:50 am**

DaM

I really don't know anything about God, nor do I know anything about myself, except to know that ''I AM'', and that's as far as it goes for me...I

I’m not being critical here but just asking how you know this. For example Buddhism suggests we have no unified I but function as five skandhas changing from one to the other. So if there is no I, what creates AM other than imagination. So I need a means to verify what I am in the context of universal purpose

Knowing I AM is an Awakening in and of itself, because it informs me that I am aware I am aware.

But which I is aware and why are all the other I’s composing the skandhas not aware? How can you verify I AM which would be reasonable for a Buddhist?

Ecclesiastes 4:2-3 : And I declared that the dead, who had already died, are happier than the living, who are still alive. But better than both is the one who has never been born, who has not seen the evil that is done under the sun.

Quite true. But it does explain one of the values of conscious evolution: to become a part of conscious life ABOVE the sun.

My ideal world within the dream of separation would be for every human being to be like Jesus. But that is not going to happen any time soon, if ever. And so I think once one has awakened from the dream, it's the end of knowledge, it's back to the garden of innocence for that awakened one, they are in the world but no longer of it. That to me seems more sensible, and the likely reason to awaken in the first place.. While everything else just carries on as it has always done, the same as it ever is, was, which is nothing more than a giant vanity project, repeating itself over and over again going nowhere, until this shit show is seen through for the stupid game it is ...so then once it is seen through, one can just slip away, and hardly anyone ever notices you have gone because you are still here, except your not here in the way they think you are.

We can experience the external world WITHOUT identifying with it. It is called escapism. We can also experience the external world consciously WITH non identification: with conscious attention. A person must decide what they want and proceed from there. Christianity for example asserts that freedom from the world comes from consciously experiencing the good and bad for what it is. Can a person become capable of this quality of non emotional attention? If not we are better off with escapism

We can only ever experience what is our own experience, so there is no point in denying anyone else their own experience by arguing it, or debunking it, or trying to refute it...to me, that is just so energy draining, unecessary and futile.

I agree. I have experienced my desire to interpret rather than experience. It is very hard not to do this This error is modern philosophy. Asking questions as we’ve been doing isn’t arguing. It is the essence of a Socratic dialogue which has been lost in favor of arguing

Posted: **Wed May 27, 2020 1:33 pm**

Nick_A wrote: ↑Wed May 27, 2020 2:50 am DaM

I really don't know anything about God, nor do I know anything about myself, except to know that ''I AM'', and that's as far as it goes for me...I
I’m not being critical here but just asking how you know this. For example Buddhism suggests we have no unified I but function as five skandhas changing from one to the other. So if there is no I, what creates AM other than imagination. So I need a means to verify what I am in the context of universal purpose

Knowing I AM is an Awakening in and of itself, because it informs me that I am aware I am aware.
But which I is aware and why are all the other I’s composing the skandhas not aware? How can you verify I AM which would be reasonable for a Buddhist? Is a unified I, I AM, the goal of conscious evoution, the human soul possible or must we remain a plurality?

Ecclesiastes 4:2-3 : And I declared that the dead, who had already died, are happier than the living, who are still alive. But better than both is the one who has never been born, who has not seen the evil that is done under the sun.
Quite true. But it does explain one of the values of conscious evolution: to become a part of conscious life ABOVE the sun.

My ideal world within the dream of separation would be for every human being to be like Jesus. But that is not going to happen any time soon, if ever. And so I think once one has awakened from the dream, it's the end of knowledge, it's back to the garden of innocence for that awakened one, they are in the world but no longer of it. That to me seems more sensible, and the likely reason to awaken in the first place.. While everything else just carries on as it has always done, the same as it ever is, was, which is nothing more than a giant vanity project, repeating itself over and over again going nowhere, until this shit show is seen through for the stupid game it is ...so then once it is seen through, one can just slip away, and hardly anyone ever notices you have gone because you are still here, except your not here in the way they think you are.
We can experience the external world WITHOUT identifying with it. It is called escapism. We can also experience the external world consciously WITH non identification: with conscious attention. A person must decide what they want and proceed from there. Christianity for example asserts that freedom from the world comes from consciously experiencing the good and bad for what it is. Can a person become capable of this quality of non emotional attention? If not we are better off with escapism

We can only ever experience what is our own experience, so there is no point in denying anyone else their own experience by arguing it, or debunking it, or trying to refute it...to me, that is just so energy draining, unecessary and futile.
I agree. I have experienced my desire to interpret rather than experience. It is very hard not to do this This error is modern philosophy. Asking questions as we’ve been doing isn’t arguing. It is the essence of a Socratic dialogue which has been lost in favor of arguing

Posted: **Wed May 27, 2020 3:55 pm**

I really don't know anything about God, nor do I know anything about myself, except to know that ''I AM'', and that's as far as it goes for me...I

Nick_A wrote: ↑Wed May 27, 2020 2:50 amI’m not being critical here but just asking how you know this. For example Buddhism suggests we have no unified I but function as five skandhas changing from one to the other. So if there is no I, what creates AM other than imagination. So I need a means to verify what I am in the context of universal purpose

The I AM is one thing, one being within which everything appears. So the skandhas are just the appearances of this oneness. Even the sense of otherness, aka twoness/duality is an appearance within the same oneness.

Appearances, are what awareness is aware OF... which are inseparable from the awareness. To be aware of appearances is known as the first person singular pronoun. It's self evident. In order to know I AM ..I also have to know I am not, by using a metaphorical thorn to remove a thorn, then throw them both away. To remove ignorance, knowledge is necessary, but finally both must dissolve into Reality. Your Self is without ignorance, without knowledge. That's the true I AM ...I still don't personally see a purpose for this other than what the mind puts there, which is again the dream of separation. This is the way I see it Nick.

Knowing I AM is an Awakening in and of itself, because it informs me that I am aware I am aware.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Wed May 27, 2020 2:50 amBut which I is aware and why are all the other I’s composing the skandhas not aware? How can you verify I AM which would be reasonable for a Buddhist?

The skandhas are appearances. appearances are not aware, they are being awared by awareness, the same one, which is always prior to the skandhas. There are not many I's here, there is only One...and the many contents of this one that only appear to many other I's are in reality the same One Self.

Ecclesiastes 4:2-3 : And I declared that the dead, who had already died, are happier than the living, who are still alive. But better than both is the one who has never been born, who has not seen the evil that is done under the sun.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Wed May 27, 2020 2:50 amQuite true. But it does explain one of the values of conscious evolution: to become a part of conscious life ABOVE the sun.

Yeah that maybe so. It means not allowing oneself to be yanked back into the maelstrom of mental activity...aka awareness of otherness. And yet, one can simply be in total nondual awareness without ever zoning out of mental activity completely, because once one has awakened from the illusion of duality, there is no returning to it, and yet you still have to act as though it is a reality for you ..but once awakened, you literally function effortlessly without desire or attachment. I should know because I am living proof of this totally free and expansive experience of nondual being...It's like having the best of both worlds, one can be and do what others want you to be and do, and at the same time be totally unattached to any outcome of the way life is playing out in the given moment, but just to accept it as it is totally without judging it. I suppose it could be seen as some form of escapism, but then again it can be seen as just being aware of a Reality for what it actually is, rather than what you would like it to be, because Reality is never really what thought imposes upon it...that's all just a imagined story...and yes, this story is very real in the sense it is directly experienced. Except that no one is experiencing any of it, it's just appearing as a fictional conceptual narrative, and the reason I say that is because you can notice every conceivable thing coming and going in your life, including feelings, thoughts, beliefs, sensations, sights and sounds, and even animal and people. All things come and go except YOU

The following quote describes this feeling of being in the world, but not of it ..quite well...

The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.
F. Scott Fitzgerald

So it's not like awakened people are just trying to escape from REALITY...when their ego dissolves into the great ocean of being, rather, they are just being REALITY for what it actually is without any agenda or strings attached.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Wed May 27, 2020 2:50 amI have experienced my desire to interpret rather than experience. It is very hard not to do this This error is modern philosophy. Asking questions as we’ve been doing isn’t arguing. It is the essence of a Socratic dialogue which has been lost in favor of arguing.

I see interpretation and experience the same thing...because as one is interpreting their experience is within the same moment of what they are interpreting.

We are in essence only talking to ourself, asking questions to ourself, and seeking answers that we already have. Oneness has no argument with itself..if there is then that too is with itself and no other.

Now if every human being understood nonduality and their nondual being then the world might be a totally different place than it is now.

But part of the game of duality is the dream of separation, so in that regard, there is no knowledge without the dream, and the dream is all there is, and so nothing will change, because you never change, change is always within you.

So even if every single person had an awakening, they would still be a part of the dream, because that's all there is. And no one knows what sort of a reality that would be like to all be awake, because we all pass from this dream world, and so do not get to witness everyone awaken at once.

And yet, that too is just within the dream story...in REALITY there is no one to awaken, be born or pass away...for everything is already wide awake.Awake awareness is invisible, content-less, formless, boundless, and timeless.

.

Posted: **Thu May 28, 2020 12:55 am**

DaM

The I AM is one thing, one being within which everything appears. So the skandhas are just the appearances of this oneness. Even the sense of otherness, aka twoness/duality is an appearance within the same oneness.

Appearances, are what awareness is aware OF... which are inseparable from the awareness. To be aware of appearances is known as the first person singular pronoun. It's self evident. In order to know I AM ..I also have to know I am not, by using a metaphorical thorn to remove a thorn, then throw them both away. To remove ignorance, knowledge is necessary, but finally both must dissolve into Reality. Your Self is without ignorance, without knowledge. That's the true I AM ...I still don't personally see a purpose for this other than what the mind puts there, which is again the dream of separation. This is the way I see it Nick.

If appearances are what awareness is aware of, do they exist or do they come into existence only when awareness is aware of them? Are I Am and I AM not both appearances?[/quote]

As I see it our great vertical universe has “no-thing” beyond time and space but its will initiates creation within time and space making the descent into the levels of reality which comprise our universe possible. At the end there is nothing. Where no-thing consciously includes all potentials, nothing lacks potential. So as you see it, Is the act of dissolving directed in the direction of no-thing or nothing? The objective purpose of human being is evolving from meaningless existence below Plato’s divided line into the awareness of human meaning and purpose above the divided line

Yeah that maybe so. It means not allowing oneself to be yanked back into the maelstrom of mental activity...aka awareness of otherness. And yet, one can simply be in total nondual awareness without ever zoning out of mental activity completely, because once one has awakened from the illusion of duality, there is no returning to it, and yet you still have to act as though it is a reality for you ..but once awakened, you literally function effortlessly without desire or attachment. I should know because I am living proof of this totally free and expansive experience of nondual being...It's like having the best of both worlds, one can be and do what others want you to be and do, and at the same time be totally unattached to any outcome of the way life is playing out in the given moment, but just to accept it as it is totally without judging it. I suppose it could be seen as some form of escapism, but then again it can be seen as just being aware of a Reality for what it actually is, rather than what you would like it to be, because Reality is never really what thought imposes upon it...that's all just a imagined story...and yes, this story is very real in the sense it is directly experienced. Except that no one is experiencing any of it, it's just appearing as a fictional conceptual narrative, and the reason I say that is because you can notice every conceivable thing coming and going in your life, including feelings, thoughts, beliefs, sensations, sights and sounds, and even animal and people. All things come and go except YOU

You seem to be describing what I know of as detachment.

“Attachment is the great fabricator of illusions; reality can be obtained only by someone who is detached. ”

There is no detachment where there is no pain. And there is no pain endured without hatred or lying unless detachment is present too. Simone Weil
Are you saying that you live free of attachments to meaningless things that are the sources of hatred and lying in the world?

The only thing we can call our own is our conscious attention. It has been sacrificed for animal reactive attention so it is safe to say that we really have nothing

The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.
F. Scott Fitzgerald

This is why the greats value the contradiction while the experts hate it.

“When a contradiction is impossible to resolve except by a lie, then we know that it is really a door.” ― Simone Weil.

The man of being knows he is experiencing a door while the expert sees it as an annoyance to conditioned thoughts.

And yet, that too is just within the dream story...in REALITY there is no one to awaken, be born or pass away...for everything is already wide awake.Awake awareness is invisible, content-less, formless, boundless, and timeless.
Is nature as it takes place in the world reality or a dream?

We know that in nature everything eats something else. Is this exchange of energies happening or just a dream? I remember reading the story how the bishop was teaching a student in the seminary. The student disagreed that God was omnipotent. The Bishop asked what God could not do. The student replied that he can’t beat the ace of trumps with the deuce

That explains it. Everything is connected by laws. For God to change one thing he would have to change everything. Animal life including animal man is governed by laws. The question is if nature exists or does it cease to exist when awareness is unaware of this marvelous machine and why he allowed it to be built or imagined or does this eating machine serve a higher universal purpose? Why imagine something so logical and complex? Is logic necessary for imagination?

Posted: **Fri May 29, 2020 2:26 am**

Do fractions exist or are they just part of a dream? I know I can divide ONE into two halves, four quarters, eight eighths and so on. In order to define a fraction we must have knowledge of ONE and and the meaning of fractions and how they relate to one another.. We cannot know what an eighth is without knowing how fractions are created.

It seems to me than that the fractions of the whole which produce fragmentation exist. We observe fragmentation. But then again how do we know what a thing in itself is a fragment of? Is it A Half, A quarter, an eighth, or more fragmented? Is there a method to define the reality of a fraction?

Posted: **Fri May 29, 2020 7:03 am**

Nick_A wrote: ↑Fri May 29, 2020 2:26 am Do fractions exist or are they just part of a dream?

Fractions exist as conceptual knowns BY not-a-thing.
Why not-a-thing? because all things are KNOWN...and what is KNOWN conceptually does not know any thing...concepts don't know any thing, because concepts are KNOWN by the ONLY KNOWING there is which is not-a-thing.
Not-a-thing knows no-thing, it is the knowing. No-thing is not an experience, it is the experiencing.
Not-a-thing has no purpose or reason to be, and yet reason and purpose arise within the experiencing of conceptual purpose and reason by not-a-thing.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Fri May 29, 2020 2:26 am I know I can divide ONE into two halves, four quarters, eight eighths and so on.

Not-a-thing is doing or knowing that. This not-a-thing is not any concept and yets knows all concepts within the dream story of not-a-thing. The dream story is this immediate not-knowing knowing.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Fri May 29, 2020 2:26 am In order to define a fraction we must have knowledge of ONE and and the meaning of fractions and how they relate to one another.. We cannot know what an eighth is without knowing how fractions are created.

Measurement is KNOWN conceptually by the only knowing there is, within this not-a-thing not-knowing awareness. Within this not-a-thing awareness arises the God, or the Beloved or the UN-conditional Love concept....and so however the concept of ( I ) is known conceptually, it's all STILL just the same one not-a-thing knowing ITSELF.

Nick_A wrote: ↑Fri May 29, 2020 2:26 amIt seems to me than that the fractions of the whole which produce fragmentation exist. We observe fragmentation. But then again how do we know what a thing in itself is a fragment of? Is it A Half, A quarter, an eighth, or more fragmented? Is there a method to define the reality of a fraction?

We know what a thing IS conceptually, but we do not know what KNOWS a concept without making this knowing into a conceptually known knower aka a concept known...So the actual KNOWER cannot be pointed to by a conceptual known, because the KNOWER is the pointing that cannot be pointed to, in the same context, an arrow can point to every conceptual thing except itself.

Fragments are optical illusions of the dreamer within the dream of separation, which is the awareness of concepts within itself.

.

Posted: **Fri May 29, 2020 7:09 am**

Nick_A wrote: ↑Thu May 28, 2020 12:55 am
That explains it. Everything is connected by laws. For God to change one thing he would have to change everything. Animal life including animal man is governed by laws. The question is if nature exists or does it cease to exist when awareness is unaware of this marvelous machine and why he allowed it to be built or imagined or does this eating machine serve a higher universal purpose? Why imagine something so logical and complex? Is logic necessary for imagination?

Awareness can never be unaware..there is no such state as unaware, there is only aware.

Within awareness arises anything one can possibly think of...all imagined of course, and yes, the imagination is real.

Complexity and logic are all within the dream story as concepts known, known by not-a-thing, aka emptiness...or if the emptiness word makes no sense, then we can use empty fullness.

There is no higher universal purpose for anything except within the dream, but even that will be pure empty fullness.
.

Posted: **Fri May 29, 2020 7:26 am**

Nick_A wrote: ↑Fri May 29, 2020 2:26 am It seems to me than that the fractions of the whole which produce fragmentation exist. We observe fragmentation. But then again how do we know what a thing in itself is a fragment of? Is it A Half, A quarter, an eighth, or more fragmented? Is there a method to define the reality of a fraction?

Hi DAM, Nick - interesting dialogue!
Just my 2 cents (or less?) worth regarding fragmentation:
You don't actually ever observe/perceive fragmentation - you observe diversity, which is not the same as fragmentation.
A separate/standalone fragment is always an interpretation of a perception - not perception/direct experience itself.

Posted: **Fri May 29, 2020 7:55 am**

AlexW wrote: ↑Fri May 29, 2020 7:26 am
Nick_A wrote: ↑Fri May 29, 2020 2:26 am It seems to me than that the fractions of the whole which produce fragmentation exist. We observe fragmentation. But then again how do we know what a thing in itself is a fragment of? Is it A Half, A quarter, an eighth, or more fragmented? Is there a method to define the reality of a fraction?
Hi DAM, Nick - interesting dialogue!
Just my 2 cents (or less?) worth regarding fragmentation:
You don't actually ever observe/perceive fragmentation - you observe diversity, which is not the same as fragmentation.
A separate/standalone fragment is always an interpretation of a perception - not perception/direct experience itself.

Hi Alex, thanks for popping up.

I totally agree with your response, and very nicely put too.

.

Posted: **Fri May 29, 2020 5:19 pm**

DaM

Awareness can never be unaware..there is no such state as unaware, there is only aware.

Within awareness arises anything one can possibly think of...all imagined of course, and yes, the imagination is real.

Complexity and logic are all within the dream story as concepts known, known by not-a-thing, aka emptiness...or if the emptiness word makes no sense, then we can use empty fullness.

There is no higher universal purpose for anything except within the dream, but even that will be pure empty fullness.
.

We seem to have two primary differences concerning awareness and when it begins, I believe creation is a necessity while you believe it is a dream. As an objective necessity it has purpose but a dream doesn't but is the result of the dreams of the dreamer.

The explanation given by Plotinus describing the relationship of the ineffable ONE which IS and beyond time and space you seem to call awareness with nous or the first step in creation which begins awareness.

Nous, (Greek: “mind” or “intellect”) in philosophy, the faculty of intellectual apprehension and of intuitive thought. Used in a narrower sense, it is distinguished from discursive thought and applies to the apprehension of eternal intelligible substances and first principles.

Discursive reason is what we think about non experienced apprehension. Universal consciousness is sustained at its various levels by the demiurge

For me the ONE IS. It is beyond time and space and begins the necessary involution first into Nous within creation and involutes further into wold soul and individual soul. In this way everything is connected by laws.

For you awareness seems to be the quality which creates the dream. It isn't a necessity but the result of a desire. Do I have that right.

Hi Alex

Consider the primary colors of red blue and yellow. Are they fragments of the involution of the vibrations of white light we perceive as colors or are they examples of diversity with no common origin? Without a common origin atheists are right. Accepting a common origin requires contmplating what has become politically incorect so we celebrate diversity with its origin as society itself.

The universe as a necessity requires contemplation with the goal of noesis to feel human meaning and purpose. The universe as a dream without objective purpose just requires acceptance. I'm glad DaM is willing to discuss these things.

Posted: **Sat May 30, 2020 3:12 am**

Nick_A wrote: ↑Fri May 29, 2020 5:19 pm Hi Alex

Consider the primary colors of red blue and yellow. Are they fragments of the involution of the vibrations of white light we perceive as colors or are they examples of diversity with no common origin? Without a common origin atheists are right. Accepting a common origin requires contmplating what has become politically incorect so we celebrate diversity with its origin as society itself.

Hi Nick, thank you for your question(s).

I will try to keep my interpretative/dualistic reply as close to direct experience / awareness as possible - to achieve this, one has to avoid applying all theories (like there being a ONE or an "involution into Nous") and stick with what is actually perceived/experienced.

Now, when you look at the room/scenery in front of you ... do the colours that you perceive "come from" somewhere? Do you actually perceive a source or - once you open your eyes - are they simply here/now?
I am not asking for a theory of light (white light and its components etc etc) nor am I asking for a theoretical explanation, but simply about what you actually see.

If you asked me, then my answer would be: I see color - and thats all that I actually see.
There is no area without color, there are no gaps or holes in this visual field - there are also no separate objects... there is simply color, which is, if you like, nothing but seeing itself.
Thus: Color = Seeing

I know, I haven't answered your question if colors are "fragments of the involution of the vibrations of white light" or rather "examples of diversity with no common origin" - this is so, because I simply don't see a "common origin" nor do I see "fragments of white light" - all I see is seeing (color), no origin and no fragmentation.
And this is exactly what awareness is - color/seeing (or rather: direct experience) without an origin and without fragmentation.

Posted: **Sat May 30, 2020 3:35 pm**

Hi Alex

Now, when you look at the room/scenery in front of you ... do the colours that you perceive "come from" somewhere? Do you actually perceive a source or - once you open your eyes - are they simply here/now?
I am not asking for a theory of light (white light and its components etc etc) nor am I asking for a theoretical explanation, but simply about what you actually see.

If you asked me, then my answer would be: I see color - and thats all that I actually see.
There is no area without color, there are no gaps or holes in this visual field - there are also no separate objects... there is simply color, which is, if you like, nothing but seeing itself.
Thus: Color = Seeing

A dog sees without meaning. The dog is incapable of pondering meaning. Everything for the dog is dualistic and decided by its attractions to affirmation and denial.

A human being can open nto the third dimension of thought or the experience of objective meaning. Color is an attribute of seeing but what does it mean?

“Colors are the deeds/ and sufferings of light.” ― Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

Goethe sees colors but what does it mean? Why are colors suffering? Why don't they glorify the idea of God? These questions are the purpose of philosophy. Some people are drawn to see with "meaning" and some not. Color then is only seeing

Posted: **Sun May 31, 2020 2:03 am**

Nick_A wrote: ↑Sat May 30, 2020 3:35 pm Goethe sees colors but what does it mean? Why are colors suffering? Why don't they glorify the idea of God? These questions are the purpose of philosophy. Some people are drawn to see with "meaning" and some not. Color then is only seeing

To me, there are two main perspectives of how one can see the world:

There is the perspective of actual, direct experience - this "perspective" contains no meaning, no judgements, no opposites, no relativity, no duality.
It simply is pure awareness - color is awareness, seeing is awareness, taste of apple is awareness/reality/God (whatever label one prefers...).
This perspective is as such not really a perspective at all - it simply is what is. It requires no explanation - every explanation actually divorces you from it (as it gives birth to separation - it creates the perspective called "self/I/me" that is looking at a million different objects).

The other perspective is that of duality, but where the non-dual "perspective" is one (or rather: not two), duality contains as many perspectives as there are "thinkers". Every perspective is unique, personal, subjective - it contains all the meanings one awards to form and colour, thoughts and ideas...

Philosophy talks about these perspectives - and you are right in pointing out that discussing a non-perspective (what non duality actually is) is ultimately futile - but here we are and discussing happens ... but it happens in the arena of dualistic perspectives, from one "self" to another "self"... two perspectives bouncing off each other... and why not... its a fun game to play.

Anyway, besides all that, I still believe it is interesting (if not important) to actually understand where all these perspectives originate from, to see that they are not real - they are simply constantly changing ideas - and that beyond/before all these conceptual perspectives there is actually "something" permanent, something rock solid, something not affected by a perspective - and that it is this source (awareness) that actually sustains us, that makes all these perspectives possible and that will still "be" when all these perspectives are no more.

Ah, yes, I nearly forgot... my take on the meaning of Goethe's statement "colors are the deeds and sufferings of light":
You could rephrase: Objects are the deeds and sufferings of awareness.
Awareness, just like light, when refracted via the prism of thought creates a display of separate things (just like a prism creates a display of separate colors) - it is the deed but also the resulting suffering (and, I would add: as well as pleasure) - and thus duality itself, that is born from the undivided womb of awareness/light.

Philosophy Now Forum

Wholeness and Fragmentation

Re: Wholeness and Fragmentation

Re: Wholeness and Fragmentation

Re: Wholeness and Fragmentation

Re: Wholeness and Fragmentation

Re: Wholeness and Fragmentation

Re: Wholeness and Fragmentation

Re: Wholeness and Fragmentation

Re: Wholeness and Fragmentation

Re: Wholeness and Fragmentation

Re: Wholeness and Fragmentation

Re: Wholeness and Fragmentation

Re: Wholeness and Fragmentation

Re: Wholeness and Fragmentation

Re: Wholeness and Fragmentation

Re: Wholeness and Fragmentation