Philosophy Now Forum

The awareness of no-I, no-Me, no-whatever arise in various people due to the various degrees of depersonalization.

The “Airbag” of Depersonalization: Shield or Disorder?

Infamous as one of the most painful disorders, depersonalization is also a safeguard, protecting from a danger. The emergence of depersonalization at the edge of stress can be compared with the explosion of an airbag at the edge of a car crash. The fog of unreality shields from psychological traumas like an exploded airbag protects from physical injuries. The fog of unreality falls as a barrier between person and trauma as if virtually removing this person from a threatening situation.

This defensive function of depersonalization is most evident in trauma, acute anxiety and panic attacks. When the level of panic reaches a certain threshold, depersonalization comes as a savior; continuing the comparison above – like a threshold of mechanical shock triggers the explosion of an airbag. Depersonalization appears as a kind of “airbag” built-in the human psychological structure to be employed in the threatening situations of stress, panic or trauma.

Depersonalization is a very complex defense system that requires a high level of human mental organization.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog ... r-disorder

The effects of depersonalization below is similar to what DAM and her likes are claiming.

Depersonalization represents a third way of coping that allows a person to escape or alleviate the traumatic situation. The uniqueness of this sort of escape is that it develops in the subjective world of the person psyche.

Experience of depersonalization removes the person from trauma psychically and subjectively while remaining in it physically and objectively. Depersonalization and derealization create subjective feeling of unreality - “I am not myself,” “I feel detached” and “the world is not real.”

This feeling of “detachment from the world” provides the detachment from trauma, anxiety or panic, alleviating emotional and psychological threat.

People with depersonalization describe the experience of the gap, screen or wall between person and world, often experienced together with estrangement from their own feelings, including extremely traumatic panic and fear.

Thus, the “cotton of depersonalization” saves from the trauma of emotional or psychological distress, but also at the same time creates the trauma of feeling unreal.

Diminishing the pain of trauma, the cocoon of depersonalization keeps a person trapped “inside unreality.”

There are tons of material on Depersonalization as a Defense Mechanism, here are some;

Depersonalization can be a protective mechanism but having the disorder can have life altering consequences.
This disorder occurs most commonly from the teen years and into middle adulthood.
It is usually not diagnosed in the very young or very old.
It is more prominent in those who have witnessed or sustained some form of trauma.
http://www.psy-ed.com/wpblog/mental-dis ... -disorder/

Depersonalization as a defense mechanism in survivors of trauma
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF02093366

Depersonalization as a Defense Mechanism
Dorian Feigenbaum
https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10. ... ode=upaq20

As I had stated depersonalization [of various degrees] can arise from many sources, e.g. drugs as one source, i.e. Drug Induced Depersonalization;

Cannabis-Induced Depersonalization-Derealization Disorder
Sean P. Madden, M.S., Patrick M. Einhorn, M.S.

An association between cannabis use
and the emergence of psychotic disorders
among susceptible individuals is increasingly
being described in the medical
literature (1).
https://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/doi/pd ... 018.130202

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Oct 10, 2018 5:40 amThe awareness of no-I, no-Me, no-whatever arise in various people due to the various degrees of depersonalization.

The awareness of no-I, no-Me, no-whatever arise in various people due to the various degrees of depersonalization is a fictional story arising in empty opaque awareness which is boundlessly everywhere all at once here now nowhere.

.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Wed Oct 10, 2018 1:39 pm

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Wed Oct 10, 2018 5:40 amThe awareness of no-I, no-Me, no-whatever arise in various people due to the various degrees of depersonalization.

The awareness of no-I, no-Me, no-whatever arise in various people due to the various degrees of depersonalization is a fictional story arising in empty opaque awareness which is boundlessly everywhere all at once here now nowhere.

The subject of depersonalization is very well researched and proven to a high degree. I have already provided links to various supporting research and evidence.

As a natural defense mechanism, depersonalization is definitely useful to humans.
Those who suffered from it more significantly were cured with medicine and counselling.
But to create an ideology out such a defense mechanism is stupid and at one extreme enable believers to commit terrible evil and violent acts.

Note I have given you a definition of 'what is fiction' i.e. not based on facts [existing or historical].

As such the research findings of depersonalization cannot be fictional stories per the definition of what is fiction.

However per the definition of what is fiction, your [empirical] claims of the transcendent Absolute is fictional because it is not based on facts. Or else, prove it?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 11, 2018 3:35 am
Note I have given you a definition of 'what is fiction' i.e. not based on facts [existing or historical].

As such the research findings of depersonalization cannot be fictional stories per the definition of what is fiction.

However per the definition of what is fiction, your [empirical] claims of the transcendent Absolute is fictional because it is not based on facts. Or else, prove it?

Fuck you.. turn this around to yourself, instead of getting other people to do your dirty work...first prove the definer of fiction and fact exists.. ? and while you are at it, also prove the idea that there is an emprical claimer....prove that claimer exists as well?



.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 11, 2018 3:35 am As a natural defense mechanism, depersonalization is definitely useful to humans.

What the heck are you talking about?

What defence mechanism?

Where is this defence mechanism?

Do you have any proof this idea exists literally? ..or it is just a story made of belief, concept and imagination?

This depersonalization idea, where is it?

Are you implying there is such a person? ...prove it?

You have already announced God is an impossibilty ...yet this human person (emprical I) is not an impossibilty in your world view...so tell me, how does that work? how did this so called assumed emprical I become possible? ...you are forgetting about the infinite regress scenario?

Prove this human emprical I person exists to yourself.

I already have all the answers, but I will not share them with you because you will not like what I share with you.

So this is your personal problematic conumdrum not MINE

.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Thu Oct 11, 2018 8:29 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 11, 2018 3:35 am
Note I have given you a definition of 'what is fiction' i.e. not based on facts [existing or historical].

As such the research findings of depersonalization cannot be fictional stories per the definition of what is fiction.

However per the definition of what is fiction, your [empirical] claims of the transcendent Absolute is fictional because it is not based on facts. Or else, prove it?

Fuck you.. turn this around to yourself, instead of getting other people to do your dirty work...first prove the definer of fiction and fact exists.. ? and while you are at it, also prove the idea that there is an emprical claimer....prove that claimer exists as well?

Lashing out again? That is evidence your empirical 'defense mechanism' is being triggered!
You do a reflection on your feelings and that is the proof you needed to confirm my conclusion.

Btw, the empirical you is claiming there exists a state of the transcendental absolute, thus the onus the empirical you to prove it. In this case the empirical claimer is your empirical self and person.

I easily can prove an empirical claimer exists.
Note it is obvious say in a court of law there is obviously an empirical claimant who claim he owns certain property and is suing the other party who stole it.
It is obvious the court recognize the existence of the claimer.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Thu Oct 11, 2018 8:39 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 11, 2018 3:35 am As a natural defense mechanism, depersonalization is definitely useful to humans.

What the heck are you talking about?

What defence mechanism?

Where is this defence mechanism?

Do you have any proof this idea exists literally? ..or it is just a story made of belief, concept and imagination?

This depersonalization idea, where is it?

Are you implying there is such a person? ...prove it?

You have already announced God is an impossibilty ...yet this human person (emprical I) is not an impossibilty in your world view...so tell me, how does that work? how did this so called assumed emprical I become possible? ...you are forgetting about the infinite regress scenario?

Prove this human emprical I person exists to yourself.

I already have all the answers, but I will not share them with you because you will not like what I share with you.

So this is your personal problematic conumdrum not MINE

.

You replied in the following thread, did you read this thread properly?
Read it again.

"No-I" NonDualism is a Defense Mechanism
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25259

How did you end with such a mess that you do not understand what is empirical?
Note this;

In philosophy, empiricism is a theory that states that knowledge comes only or primarily from sensory experience.[1] It is one of several views of epistemology, the study of human knowledge, along with rationalism and skepticism. Empiricism emphasises the role of empirical evidence in the formation of ideas, over the idea of innate ideas or traditions.[2] However, empiricists may argue that traditions (or customs) arise due to relations of previous sense experiences.[3]

Empiricism in the philosophy of science emphasises evidence, especially as discovered in experiments. It is a fundamental part of the scientific method that all hypotheses and theories must be tested against observations of the natural world rather than resting solely on a priori reasoning, intuition, or revelation.

Empiricism, often used by natural scientists, says that "knowledge is based on experience" and that "knowledge is tentative and probabilistic, subject to continued revision and falsification".[4] Empirical research, including experiments and validated measurement tools, guides the scientific method.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empiricism

My emphasis is on empiricism in the Philosophy of Science reinforced with critical thinking.

The empirical-I and empirical you as with the above is based on evidence, i.e. the person that is recognized empirically by yourself and others. It is so evident the empirical-I or empirical-you exists as a person. When the person is dead, there is no more empirical-I nor empirical-you. This is a fact.

The transcendental-I that can survives physical death as there is no evidence to prove the existence of such an entity.

The transcendental Absolute God cannot be proven empirically and rationally thus it is an impossibility.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:13 am Lashing out again? That is evidence your empirical 'defense mechanism' is being triggered!

Nope, reacting is just reacting, I cannot find to whom or where that reacting is coming from or appearing to, apart from nowhere.

So you think reacting which is just a word..or lashing out using words (again) ... is your proof of a defence mechanism existing...except you still have not explained where this defence mechanism is actually located.. or is that just another conceptual imagined belief of yours again?

Prove who is holding onto a defence mechanism? ...prove where that who is?

Don't just say the proof is in the words because that still leaves the problem of one reading the words where the defence mechanism is assumed to exist?......who is the one reading the words that believes the defence mechanism is in the words... Is the defence mechanism in the words, and at the same time in the one reading the the words where the defence mechanism is assumed to exist, according to your belief? ..how does that work? ..don't make me laugh..this is all in your own mind of concepts, belief and imagination projected outside of you onto a computer screen that you also believe exists separate from you and is real...even though this is all coming from your own head, when it also reacts and lashes out in defence of some words displayed and read off of a computer screen.

This is absolutely no proof at all of any emprical claimer..until you can prove the exact precise actual location of the I claimer..then you have no business claiming there is a claimer...your just spouting nonesense again. Thinking you got all this figured out.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:13 amBtw, the empirical you is claiming there exists a state of the transcendental absolute, thus the onus the empirical you to prove it. In this case the empirical claimer is your empirical self and person.

If you have already convinced your self that there is no absolute self, then why do you need me to prove something that you already know not to exist?
The rest of your defence mechanistic response is all words, nothing but words, concepts and belief, and imagination...look for the thinker, the reader and the writer, where is that?.....don't look for that in the words...you will not find youself in a word, image, belief, concept, idea, imagination....you now have to prove where is the thinker, writer and reader....prove that one exists? ..the words are the easy apart..now the onus is on you to find and prove where and who you are?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:13 amI easily can prove an empirical claimer exists.
Note it is obvious say in a court of law there is obviously an empirical claimant who claim he owns certain property and is suing the other party who stole it.
It is obvious the court recognize the existence of the claimer.

Now you are back in the mind of words, story, images, concepts, ideas, belief, imagination believed to be real...


Where is the I in which all this is appearing?


Prove the ACTUAL separate I claimer...without using ..words, story, images, concepts, ideas, belief, imagination believed to be real...etc etc etc...

Houston I think we have a problem



.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:31 am You replied in the following thread, did you read this thread properly?
Read it again.

"No-I" NonDualism is a Defense Mechanism
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=25259

How did you end with such a mess that you do not understand what is empirical?

Read it again, why is that where all the proof is that there is an empirical self , is that where the empirical I claimer exists..in those words? are those words alive now, do words grow legs and walk to courtroom to prove to themselves that they are alive and kicking and that they exist empirically ?

Words are merely breadcrumbs, not ACTUAL EVIDENCE?



We are talking about the empirical I claimer ..and where is that empirical I self located exactly?


How did you end with such a mess that you do not understand what is empirical?

What is empirical is what is SEEN, that is the easy part, but I'm never talking about the easy parts, I'm talking about the hard part... where is the ACTUAL experiencer, the ACTUAL observer of the empirical SEEN ...located? .. prove that?

Over to you..


.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Thu Oct 11, 2018 10:39 am

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:13 am Lashing out again? That is evidence your empirical 'defense mechanism' is being triggered!

Nope, reacting is just reacting, I cannot find to whom or where that reacting is coming from or appearing to, apart from nowhere.

So you think reacting which is just a word..or lashing out using words (again) ... is your proof of a defence mechanism existing...except you still have not explained where this defence mechanism is actually located.. or is that just another conceptual imagined belief of yours again?

Prove who is holding onto a defence mechanism? ...prove where that who is?

Your lashings in response to my critique is evidence of your defence mechanism being activated. The triggering is subliminal but it is manifested in the actions you take.

In the extreme, a believer would kill the one who critique his religion. This is so obvious in many cases, e.g. people are killed merely for drawing cartoons of the prophet as a result of the believers defense mechanism being activated at 90/100.
In your case the activation of the defense mechanism is relatively 20/100 along the same continuum.

Don't just say the proof is in the words because that still leaves the problem of one reading the words where the defence mechanism is assumed to exist?......who is the one reading the words that believes the defence mechanism is in the words... Is the defence mechanism in the words, and at the same time in the one reading the the words where the defence mechanism is assumed to exist, according to your belief? ..how does that work? ..don't make me laugh..this is all in your own mind of concepts, belief and imagination projected outside of you onto a computer screen that you also believe exists separate from you and is real...even though this is all coming from your own head, when it also reacts and lashes out in defence of some words displayed and read off of a computer screen.

This is absolutely no proof at all of any emprical claimer..until you can prove the exact precise actual location of the I claimer..then you have no business claiming there is a claimer...your just spouting nonesense again. Thinking you got all this figured out.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:13 amBtw, the empirical you is claiming there exists a state of the transcendental absolute, thus the onus the empirical you to prove it. In this case the empirical claimer is your empirical self and person.

If you have already convinced your self that there is no absolute self, then why do you need me to prove something that you already know not to exist?
The rest of your defence mechanistic response is all words, nothing but words, concepts and belief, and imagination...look for the thinker, the reader and the writer, where is that?.....don't look for that in the words...you will not find youself in a word, image, belief, concept, idea, imagination....you now have to prove where is the thinker, writer and reader....prove that one exists? ..the words are the easy apart..now the onus is on you to find and prove where and who you are?

You are being shifty and conflating again.
You don't get it even after I have explained to you what is meant by 'empirical'.

Can you state your understanding of what is empirical?

It is so obvious that one can prove the existence of the empirical person.

What you are asking me to show is non-empirical and an illusion. That is a non-starter.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:13 amI easily can prove an empirical claimer exists.
Note it is obvious say in a court of law there is obviously an empirical claimant who claim he owns certain property and is suing the other party who stole it.
It is obvious the court recognize the existence of the claimer.

Now you are back in the mind of words, story, images, concepts, ideas, belief, imagination believed to be real...


Where is the I in which all this is appearing?


Prove the ACTUAL separate I claimer...without using ..words, story, images, concepts, ideas, belief, imagination believed to be real...etc etc etc...

Houston I think we have a problem

The above is one of the most stupid question I have ever encountered.

We have agreed, there is no "ACTUAL separate I claimer" [non-empirical] so why are you asking me to prove such a non-existent thing.

Note I was referring to the empirical-I, empirical-you, empirical person and in this case an empirical claimant.
How can one deal and express 'what is empirical' without using ..words, story, images, concepts, ideas, belief, imagination believed to be real...etc etc etc...

Prove who is holding onto a defence mechanism? ...prove where that who is?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Oct 12, 2018 3:50 amYour lashings in response to my critique is evidence of your defence mechanism being activated. The triggering is subliminal but it is manifested in the actions you take.

In the extreme, a believer would kill the one who critique his religion. This is so obvious in many cases, e.g. people are killed merely for drawing cartoons of the prophet as a result of the believers defense mechanism being activated at 90/100.
In your case the activation of the defense mechanism is relatively 20/100 along the same continuum.

Here we go again, same old response repeated from the last response ..its the same old response practically word for word.Meaning absolutely zilch within the mind of an imagined believer.

No proof from you at all that this defencence mechanism belongs to an empirical I person...while I have stated repeatedly to you that this defensive mechanism is just a belief, concept and imagination, (the demand for proofs) is also in the realm of concepts and belief, and imagination...all arising nowhere from no thing to no one. Nothing tangible or literally existing here except an imagined separate self that would feel the need to defend itself...sorry, you are in the world of dreamscape again playing with imaginary shadows in the mind of concepts, belief, and imagination. This is all appearances of ONENESS/ GOD, playing hide and seek with itself. The relative and the absolute are the same ONE.

Defense mechanisms are all dreams about imaginary gods needing to be defended,and about imaginary people thinking they exist too, and that their god is better than another imaginary persons god....and then theres beliefs about imaginary people that hate each other and will kill others for their imaginary beliefs that they hold as absolute truth, and then theres imaginary people who make imaginary claims that they exist and then claim god doesn't exist, and then theres imaginary people who believe there is no god and that they exist but no god exists....all this is in the imaginary realm of ''THOUGHT'' belief, and conceptual imagined realities that are nothing but dreams within dreams here today gone tomorrow.....this is all imagined appearances within the mind of the ONE/ GOD ..aka Nothing being Everything...infinitely for eternity.

All mentioned stuff...has nothing to do with truth which is ....ACTUAL ...actual does NOT require ''thought' to be actual..Actual is this direct MUTE EXPERIENCE OF BEING ..no one, and no thing, just being.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:13 am You are being shifty and conflating again.
You don't get it even after I have explained to you what is meant by 'empirical'.

Can you state your understanding of what is empirical?

It is so obvious that one can prove the existence of the empirical person.

What you are asking me to show is non-empirical and an illusion. That is a non-starter.

Proving anything is of the conceptual mind of belief and imagination that a prover exists.
You have previously stated God does not exist, and to know that would require a knower and a prover.... where is that knower and prover located exactly? ...except in the conceptual mind of belief and imagination?

Direct ACTUAL experience of being is mute of any belief, concept or imagination about it.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Oct 12, 2018 3:50 amThe above is one of the most stupid question I have ever encountered.

That's because questions can only arise to the sense of a separate self, believed and imagined to be real, in this conception. In reality there is no such conception except belief, which is imagined.

Actual direct experience of being is mute. It just is, and that is all oneness/god.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Oct 12, 2018 3:50 amWe have agreed, there is no "ACTUAL separate I claimer" [non-empirical] so why are you asking me to prove such a non-existent thing.

The empirical can never not be Non-empirical ..the empirical is concept, story, belief, and imagination, appearances of nothing. God/oneness is nothing being everything within the dream of separation...there is no such thing as an empirical self aware of itself. No thing is aware of itself. There''s just the dream nothing is dreaming.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Oct 12, 2018 3:50 amNote I was referring to the empirical-I, empirical-you, empirical person and in this case an empirical claimant.

Again, these are concepts belief and imagination aka the realm of ''thought''

THIS actual direct mute experience is prior to any thought about it. THIS actual direct mute experience is one without a second manifesting all at once here now nowhere, everywhere boundlessly without any known beginning nor end. There is no thing being it...it is just being... everything and nothing.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Oct 12, 2018 3:50 amHow can one deal and express 'what is empirical' without using ..words, story, images, concepts, ideas, belief, imagination believed to be real...etc etc etc...

The one expressing itself using words doesn't exist, except as the concept itself...in other words no thing is expressing itself, its all illusory appearances within reality itself which is direct actual and mute, not imagined......words are the fictional story within nothingness...thought is of the mind, the mind is a phantom, an emerging phantom, its a belief, an imagined entity(second hand illusory knowledge) upon what is always and already here first, this non-knowing mystery of actual direct beingness...aka oneness/God, you.

There is no empirical I ..except in this imaginary concept an appearace within the mind of oneness/God, you.




.

Dontaskme wrote: ↑Fri Oct 12, 2018 7:49 am

Prove who is holding onto a defence mechanism? ...prove where that who is?

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Oct 12, 2018 3:50 amYour lashings in response to my critique is evidence of your defence mechanism being activated. The triggering is subliminal but it is manifested in the actions you take.

In the extreme, a believer would kill the one who critique his religion. This is so obvious in many cases, e.g. people are killed merely for drawing cartoons of the prophet as a result of the believers defense mechanism being activated at 90/100.
In your case the activation of the defense mechanism is relatively 20/100 along the same continuum.

Here we go again, same old response repeated from the last response ..its the same old response practically word for word.Meaning absolutely zilch within the mind of an imagined believer.

No proof from you at all that this defencence mechanism belongs to an empirical I person...while I have stated repeatedly to you that this defensive mechanism is just a belief, concept and imagination, (the demand for proofs) is also in the realm of concepts and belief, and imagination...all arising nowhere from no thing to no one. Nothing tangible or literally existing here except an imagined separate self that would feel the need to defend itself...sorry, you are in the world of dreamscape again playing with imaginary shadows in the mind of concepts, belief, and imagination. This is all appearances of ONENESS/ GOD, playing hide and seek with itself. The relative and the absolute are the same ONE.

Defense mechanisms are all dreams about imaginary gods needing to be defended,and about imaginary people thinking they exist too, and that their god is better than another imaginary persons god....and then theres beliefs about imaginary people that hate each other and will kill others for their imaginary beliefs that they hold as absolute truth, and then theres imaginary people who make imaginary claims that they exist and then claim god doesn't exist, and then theres imaginary people who believe there is no god and that they exist but no god exists....all this is in the imaginary realm of ''THOUGHT'' belief, and conceptual imagined realities that are nothing but dreams within dreams here today gone tomorrow.....this is all imagined appearances within the mind of the ONE/ GOD ..aka Nothing being Everything...infinitely for eternity.

All mentioned stuff...has nothing to do with truth which is ....ACTUAL ...actual does NOT require ''thought' to be actual..Actual is this direct MUTE EXPERIENCE OF BEING ..no one, and no thing, just being.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Thu Oct 11, 2018 9:13 am You are being shifty and conflating again.
You don't get it even after I have explained to you what is meant by 'empirical'.

Can you state your understanding of what is empirical?

It is so obvious that one can prove the existence of the empirical person.

What you are asking me to show is non-empirical and an illusion. That is a non-starter.

Proving anything is of the conceptual mind of belief and imagination that a prover exists.
You have previously stated God does not exist, and to know that would require a knower and a prover.... where is that knower and prover located exactly? ...except in the conceptual mind of belief and imagination?

Direct ACTUAL experience of being is mute of any belief, concept or imagination about it.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Oct 12, 2018 3:50 amThe above is one of the most stupid question I have ever encountered.

That's because questions can only arise to the sense of a separate self, believed and imagined to be real, in this conception. In reality there is no such conception except belief, which is imagined.

Actual direct experience of being is mute. It just is, and that is all oneness/god.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Oct 12, 2018 3:50 amWe have agreed, there is no "ACTUAL separate I claimer" [non-empirical] so why are you asking me to prove such a non-existent thing.

The empirical can never not be Non-empirical ..the empirical is concept, story, belief, and imagination, appearances of nothing. God/oneness is nothing being everything within the dream of separation...there is no such thing as an empirical self aware of itself. No thing is aware of itself. There''s just the dream nothing is dreaming.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Oct 12, 2018 3:50 amNote I was referring to the empirical-I, empirical-you, empirical person and in this case an empirical claimant.

Again, these are concepts belief and imagination aka the realm of ''thought''

THIS actual direct mute experience is prior to any thought about it. THIS actual direct mute experience is one without a second manifesting all at once here now nowhere, everywhere boundlessly without any known beginning nor end. There is no thing being it...it is just being... everything and nothing.

Veritas Aequitas wrote: ↑Fri Oct 12, 2018 3:50 amHow can one deal and express 'what is empirical' without using ..words, story, images, concepts, ideas, belief, imagination believed to be real...etc etc etc...

The one expressing itself using words doesn't exist, except as the concept itself...in other words no thing is expressing itself, its all illusory appearances within reality itself which is direct actual and mute, not imagined......words are the fictional story within nothingness...thought is of the mind, the mind is a phantom, an emerging phantom, its a belief, an imagined entity(second hand illusory knowledge) upon what is always and already here first, this non-knowing mystery of actual direct beingness...aka oneness/God, you.

There is no empirical I ..except in this imaginary concept an appearace within the mind of oneness/God, you.

Your postings above appears to indicate you are in a delusional state.

Note this Scenario;
If I ask anyone what will s/he do if s/he is standing in from of a real empirical railway track and the train is coming in his/her way, what will she do?
As a normal person s/he will reply "I will get out of the railway track as quick as possible"
That is the empirical-I speaking within the real empirical-world.

You are mad to insist there is no empirical-I in the above real sense.

Instead you are arguing there is "God/oneness is nothing being everything" which you cannot prove at all.

Your defense is very crazy, i.e.

• 1. You insist there is a God.
  2. When asked to prove God exists.
  3. Your defense is 'there is no one to prove God and no one to know the proofs'

Your [empirical-you] is crazy and delusional.