Philosophy Now Forum

I came home today and almost had an OM like revelation. But it wasn't quite there...

To think that merely a structural reorganization is all that is needed to understand the universe...
Why would adding complexity add understanding? It would only add confusion, just the same flavor of truth, disguised, or would it...

I was existing...Is this all there is. I did not think this, but existed this. But do I exist. No, not in the sense of ego. But does even consciousness exist, does even perception of anything exist...Does existence exist...

Is this the absolute, the ultimate reality...Just stuff...Changing changing changing, we call this changing time we call time existence consciousness perception...

I see only rainbow colors with subtle variations, the same blacks greys blues and violets day in day out. Is this all there is? Feeling the same emotions, fluctuations of waves, ultraviolet radio frequencies, subcolor frequencies...Is this all there is!!!!!!!!!!

One can transcend the Ape, one can see past food and sex....But can one transcend being a Light!!! For the rainbow is all I see...Is the rainbow all there is???? Can the man born blind see the rainbow in his imagination? Perhaps he can see only less of the totality of all there is...But can a being of Light ever transcend seeing that which is LIGHT!!!!!!

Is there no end...

I have understood nothing

David Handeye wrote:I have understood nothing

How can one understand nothing? What is to understand? When we understand something, we feel it, we see it, it aligns, it resonates. When we understand someone's pain, we must first know pain. When we understand 2+2=4, we add it to our databanks and we see it over and over. We feel it, we see it, we regurgigitate it?

How then can one understand nothing? In order to understand we must become that thing. We must become pain, we must become 2+2=4. In order to understand complex physics, we must become complex ourselves. But since we already are nothing, how can we understand that which we are, gaze up that which we are. A number cannot gaze upon itself. We experience only that which we are not. We are not our lives, we are not our egos. How can we understand that which we are, a number cannot gaze upon itself. The eyes cannot turn upon itself and view itself.

When a man sees a leaf, he feels he senses the leaf, that which the leaf is. But what is a leaf but a collection of memories, senses, and a word to go with it? It only has the worth that was put into it. A leaf exists because that is the ultimate of a leaf. The word l-e-a-f and some old memories and senses to go with it. Connecting in on itself, regurgitating itself. When a foreign person has their own leaf, which they understand as "rakai" the "rakai" the leaf is the rakai it is the absolute rakai they can babble on to themselves about "rakai" in a way they can only understand it has the same value as leaf but rakai but slightly different feeling slightly different wave frequency sense frequency and color frequency. In this way thoughts have no inherent value.

GreatandWiseTrixie wrote:

David Handeye wrote:I have understood nothing

How can one understand nothing? What is to understand? When we understand something, we feel it, we see it, it aligns, it resonates. When we understand someone's pain, we must first know pain. When we understand 2+2=4, we add it to our databanks and we see it over and over. We feel it, we see it, we regurgigitate it?

How then can one understand nothing? In order to understand we must become that thing. We must become pain, we must become 2+2=4. In order to understand complex physics, we must become complex ourselves. But since we already are nothing, how can we understand that which we are, gaze up that which we are. A number cannot gaze upon itself. We experience only that which we are not. We are not our lives, we are not our egos. How can we understand that which we are, a number cannot gaze upon itself. The eyes cannot turn upon itself and view itself.

When a man sees a leaf, he feels he senses the leaf, that which the leaf is. But what is a leaf but a collection of memories, senses, and a word to go with it? It only has the worth that was put into it. A leaf exists because that is the ultimate of a leaf. The word l-e-a-f and some old memories and senses to go with it. Connecting in on itself, regurgitating itself. When a foreign person has their own leaf, which they understand as "rakai" the "rakai" the leaf is the rakai it is the absolute rakai they can babble on to themselves about "rakai" in a way they can only understand it has the same value as leaf but rakai but slightly different feeling slightly different wave frequency sense frequency and color frequency. In this way thoughts have no inherent value.

I didn't understand anything.

Mad ramblings and incoherent babble.

HexHammer wrote:Mad ramblings and incoherent babble.

No.