Thread: Are You Truly Self-aware?

Just exactly who's watching who in this crazy pyramid of life? Makes you think...









Fractals

I can't go on with this argument until you convince me that the universe will equal zero.

As X approaches an asymptote from one side, the value gets infinitely close to zero. Eventually, there's a value for X where you are sooooo close to zero, nobody cares if you finally call it zero. Embarrassingly, I don't remember the name of this number (a little help here?).

To apply this to the universe, however, is ridiculous and irresponsible. So what if the universe is only 1.0x10^-1,000,000,000 away from becoming flat? That's still a value. But perhaps you don't grasp infinity...? There is no room for generalizing when the universe is involved. And who is to say that once it cannot expand any further, it won't simply start deflating?

Originally Posted by Solskye, along with his wall of twatty text

Aww, that's so cute! Look at how small it is!

Originally Posted by Abra

I can't go on with this argument until you convince me that the universe will equal zero.

As X approaches an asymptote from one side, the value gets infinitely close to zero. Eventually, there's a value for X where you are sooooo close to zero, nobody cares if you finally call it zero. Embarrassingly, I don't remember the name of this number (a little help here?).

To apply this to the universe, however, is ridiculous and irresponsible. So what if the universe is only 1.0x10^-1,000,000,000 away from becoming flat? That's still a value. But perhaps you don't grasp infinity...? There is no room for generalizing when the universe is involved. And who is to say that once it cannot expand any further, it won't simply start deflating?

I doubt it'll convince you but, here are some articles pertaining to one I read about accelerating cosmic expansion simply by observing dark energy last month in New Scientist Magazine...

I don't think it's anything special I'm realizing here. Mainly, these feelings are intuitive, backed by actual scientific data and evidence. One just has to open themselves up to the information.



Dark Energy
Dark Energy Confirms Cosmic Expansion
New Scientist Article on Cosmic Expansion and Dark Energy

It's interesting to note that all four diagrams assume that there was a beginning point. We assume this because of the evidence the universe expands, it must have meant it was smaller at one point. But what evidence is there aside from this that there was a big bang? For all we know, the pattern of universal expansion could be a sine curve.

I'll take a look over the whole thread again tomorrow. G'night.

I just uploaded a new song for the new year... I took a sample from a lecture given by Terrence McKenna with his message to artists and art. I sang on the second half of the song...

SolSkye's Music

Come Dither While Rome Burns

Art's task is to save the soul of mankind.
And that anything less is a dithering while Rome burns.
Because if the artists who are self-selected for being able to journey into the other,
If the artist cannot find the way, then the way cannot be found.

---
Tried and true,
this you knew,
just look at you now,
flying over the rainbow.

Oh, that jewel you're holding,
silence is golden,
Let's see what your made of...

----
Not a grain of sand,
in your hand,
can be saved,
from the wave,
Are you hiding in your cave?

It's open road,
a story untold,
things around you grow old,
Think it ooover!...

If it is only you (or me) that exists, then why bother writing this.

Why am I bothering to write this, as I'm only writing to myself.. if only I exist.

This view is called solipsism..

Originally Posted by george

If it is only you (or me) that exists, then why bother writing this.

Why am I bothering to write this, as I'm only writing to myself.. if only I exist.

This view is called solipsism..

Solipsism? I never invented that!

I think the main issue here is a question that one should pose to themself. Do the assumptions made while under the influence of brain altering chemicals actually have enough merit to base an entire world view on them? Acid makes the absurd seem signifigant. Whats to say that what is being interpreted as insight and an "openness" to the information isn't actually a drug induced madness that can never be backed by rigorous scientific experimentation, or even sober spiritual meditation?

Originally Posted by george

If it is only you (or me) that exists, then why bother writing this.

Why am I bothering to write this, as I'm only writing to myself.. if only I exist.

This view is called solipsism..

This label has come up so many times in the many pages of this thread as if labeling something somehow solves it, and I will simply repost what I wrote last page in regards to it...

Me: I fail to see how putting an easy label or package on something so vast and in-comprehensive is even possible. I am not simply saying that the self (at my finite level of understanding and perception) is the only thing to exist. I am saying that everyone and everything at any moment, is the true self manifest. It makes the coupled letters S. E. L. F. pretty hard to wrap your head around, don't you agree? There is always a place where you can start-- your 'self'. However, wiping your hands free of something by cataloguing and filing it away like an overdue library book by titling it 'solipsism' and giving it no more thought isn't giving the concept, or your 'self' for that matter, enough credit. So, let's not sell ourselves short, shall we?

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I think the main issue here is a question that one should pose to themself. Do the assumptions made while under the influence of brain altering chemicals actually have enough merit to base an entire world view on them? Acid makes the absurd seem signifigant. Whats to say that what is being interpreted as insight and an "openness" to the information isn't actually a drug induced madness that can never be backed by rigorous scientific experimentation, or even sober spiritual meditation?

I believe we went over this the first time things started turning into drug debate and went off topic, and please don't drag it there again, but this entire world view of mine was had long before I've done any mind altering chemicals. Only as I gain more experience and move forward in life do I see confirmation in science and other areas of thought and study around me.

Naturally, assumptions only have merit when backed by evidence, coherence, and rationale. Yes, while on acid there are a lot of incoherent things that seem pretty coherent or significant at the time but later seem pretty stupid and trivial. I'm not sitting here discussing those things, however.

Fractals, and the other things I've presented in this thread aren't just something trivial I came up with on the spot to realize only while tripping on acid. Now I'll ask again nicely, can we please drop the strawman argument of 'drug-induced experiences don't count'. Clearly, the things I speak of in this thread aren't the babbling of a raving lunatic. If you really want to continue the discussion on the validity of a drug's effect on experience... may I suggest THIS THREAD?

Realization can be had through any mode of thought. That much should be obvious by now.

Originally Posted by SolSkye

Me: I fail to see how putting an easy label or package on something so vast and in-comprehensive is even possible.

Sorry, SolSkye, but that is not sufficient reasoning to dispute the argument.

Is it not similar to saying, as the people who disliked the heliocentric system, when they said "how could you say this about the world? It is so important and vast! It must be the center of the universe!"?

I am not simply saying that the self (at my finite level of understanding and perception) is the only thing to exist.

I think what a severe problem with this thread of yours is that you have failed to define what the "self" is. I would be very interested in reading it.

I am saying that everyone and everything at any moment, is the true self manifest. It makes the coupled letters S. E. L. F. pretty hard to wrap your head around, don't you agree? There is always a place where you can start-- your 'self'. However, wiping your hands free of something by cataloguing and filing it away like an overdue library book by titling it 'solipsism' and giving it no more thought isn't giving the concept, or your 'self' for that matter, enough credit. So, let's not sell ourselves short, shall we?

"Do not call something so important such a simple word"

While I agree that words fail in representing the transcendental matters, you fail in truly responding with a substantial point other than "how can you label something so vast"? The point is what Solipsism represents; the world as created by one individual with consciousness and everything else as a contingent of that individual. Are you trying to completely ignore this argument by simply saying, "Don't label it something; that takes away meaning"?

Naturally, assumptions only have merit when backed by evidence, coherence, and rationale. Yes, while on acid there are a lot of incoherent things that seem pretty coherent or significant at the time but later seem pretty stupid and trivial. I'm not sitting here discussing those things, however.

You had an acid trip and think you found the definition of self-awareness? Can you even define "self" or explain what it is with a shred of parsimony?

Realization can be had through any mode of thought. That much should be obvious by now.

I concur.

~

Now, I was wondering if you could do me a small favor for me; As you re-read your post broken up, think real hard about each individual word you and I used and what the words really intend and imply behind that all-too-simple but forever vague mask of arranged letters. If not, the time I've taken to write my response is meaningless and you might as well skip over it. Personally, I always enjoy going back and re-reading my threads and posts carefully anyway.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Sorry, SolSkye, but that is not sufficient reasoning to dispute the argument.

Sufficient reasoning?

I fail to see how and under who's authority exactly, the explanation is granted adequate enough. What would sufficient reasoning be then?

Dispute?

The thing about this world view of mine is, it fundamentally has nothing available to dispute as it truly allows acceptance for everything and every standpoint. Therefore, some things just aren't disputable... disagreeable (unpleasant or unenjoyable) perhaps. However, if you attempt to dispute it, you would only end up biting your own tail because your viewpoint was already allowed entry into mine.

Argument?

Since when does having the ability to label something with an inert word, "solipsism" prove anything to anyone? If by some miracle, the words here did have the power to give someone the insight, hindsight, and foresight to see things as I and so many others already see it, then I would've already shown you first hand. But unfortunately, words and the experience they attempt to purvey always fall inexorably short of the perceiver who interprets them. That's why we have so many languages all attempting the impossible-- self-expression.

Anyone offering advice to someone (especially parents to children) would know that in the end, the person ultimately walks their own path and follows their own advice... no matter what was said, and no matter how heartfelt it was.

Originally Posted by O'nus

Is it not similar to saying, as the people who disliked the heliocentric system, when they said "how could you say this about the world? It is so important and vast! It must be the center of the universe!"?

It's not as simple as just comparing my views to those outdated views of the world being the center of the universe. Essentially in doing so, you are saying you think my views are outdated when I wholly know and feel they are anything but.

In actuality, this mode of thought of mine can always adapt and deal in and with all other modes of thought, be it; scientific, intuitive, or counterintuitive. I'm not simply stabbing in the dark here.

I'm more aware of the dark and all the other unknowns, and take them into account before I stab. True open-mindedness.

Originally Posted by O'nus

I think what a severe problem with this thread of yours is that you have failed to define what the "self" is. I would be very interested in reading it.

What would defining the term "self" accomplish other than create the ability to catalogue it away, and allow the most important thing a person has to grow dust in one's mind?

Haven't we, as a culture, already been down that road on autopilot and currently stand at the ass-end of it with the current superficial mainstream mode of thought called, materialism?

The purpose of this thread was never to stifle thought, but to allow one to think more deeply about the immaterial things that materialism has so ignorantly tried to write off and define with limited language.

Even the word "immaterial" itself carries an "unimportant or irrelevant" biased connotation in it's meaning. Why? Under whose authority, exactly? I don't consider the immaterial parts of my being unimportant. They allow me to sit here and type to you, and for you to read this. And, if by some chance you do find them unimportant or irrelevant, all that shows is how the language you grew up with has filtered it's way into your mindset. In other words, following the path of least resistance. So, the real problem here lies in the use of language to attempt to define the undefinable.

Our greatest tool we have is thought, not definition. Definition is a byproduct or footprint of where thought WAS... not where thought IS.

Perhaps if you think long and hard about the word "definition" we can begin to come into agreement on something.

Definition
1. an exact statement or description of the nature, scope, or meaning of something.
2. the degree of distinctness in outline of an object, image, or sound, esp. of an image in a photograph or on a screen.

vis-a-vis... an impossibility.

Originally Posted by O'nus

"Do not call something so important such a simple word"

While I agree that words fail in representing the transcendental matters, you fail in truly responding with a substantial point other than "how can you label something so vast"? The point is what Solipsism represents; the world as created by one individual with consciousness and everything else as a contingent of that individual. Are you trying to completely ignore this argument by simply saying, "Don't label it something; that takes away meaning"?

See above. The words "one individual" by definition try to imply the characteristics of people or humanity into the nature of the universe which wasn't what I was saying, at all. I have only always said, that the entire universe and everything in it; including all life, bacteria, quarks, atoms, viruses, and aurora borealis in the sky are your real self manifest, NOT just your individual human body or individual human mind. Whether or not, you as the universe initially intended your "self" into being, is irrelevant. The fact is, you are here and you are implicitly connected to all that is, was, and will be. I just don't believe or buy that the buck stops with our human mind. It is merely our gift and gateway to understanding our true selves.

Originally Posted by O'nus

You had an acid trip and think you found the definition of self-awareness? Can you even define "self" or explain what it is with a shred of parsimony?

Again, why is there this need to define and file away anything? What does doing that give you? Peace of mind? Self-knowledge? Defining anything renders it inert, by nature. Why would you willingly want to render your "self" inert?

Shred of parsimony?
I have already spent and continually spend vast sums of money, time, and effort on music which I feel is one of many forms of true self-expression. My latest song, as all my songs do, state how I feel pretty clearly.

Understanding can't be had through inert words and symbols. It is had through one's own experience. I can only show you where to stand in order to be standing from the universal standpoint, I can't and won't try and force you to stand there yourself.

Where ever you ultimately choose to stand in life is inevitable and necessary for "self" growth.

Okay, I tried to touch on this before but I think I stepped into digression.

I can see where your thoughts lead and I really want you to consider this thread:

http://www.dreamviews.com/community/...ad.php?t=46070

Please try and absorb it as best as possible because I think it is very similar, if not exactly, what you are saying. If that being the case, then I can entirely agree with you.

Please let me know what you think.

~