Are You Truly Self-aware?

Are you truly self-aware that I am you, and you are me?
Lucidity Now...

http://www.infinitecat.com/infinite/...eesedoodle.jpg
If you haven't already started to, dont you think it's about time that you woke up?...
We are all collectively staring into the looking glass of infinity in order to distract ourselves from the fact, WE ARE ALONE...

"This distinction between past, present, and future
is only an illusion" -Albert Einstein

Some people say, 'The shortest distance between two points is, a straight line.'
Well, I always say, 'The shortest distance between two points is, to realize there is no point.'
-Me

The reason I started with some pictures, questions, and quotes is because that generally gets your thoughts flowing, and questioning which is a good thing. Kind of like what Zen Buddhists do when meditating, which they call, a 'koan' - a story, dialogue, question, or statement, generally containing aspects that are inaccessible to rational understanding, yet that may be accessible to intuition.

Now that I got you accessing your intuition why not try and use it?

The universe is fundamentally flawed in that everything here has substance yet the universe itself is infinite. Wait a minute...Go back a second... Everything here is FINITE, yet INFINITE at the same time!? That in it's own right means it should cancel itself out as an absurd paradox, yet here we are, seemingly existing as happy ignorant clams.
http://www.everythingforever.com/fated.jpg


What if I were to tell you that everyone and everything outside of yourself is a lie? Is that really so hard to believe? We do it to ourselves all the time in our dreams, how is this ANY different? We can only verify 'self' so why work from anywhere but there?

As the self-aware self, we need to step away from any separation we may have from any object here. Remember, we all came from the FINITE objects within INIFINTY, right? That means we, too, are INFINITY... Now it's time to try and be aware of that fact...

(If you followed some of my previous posts perhaps you'll recognize this)
There are two things we can choose to do in this life...

(Heading towards '0') Eternal Escape of Truth...where you remain in the middle of this dream taking turns being everyone and everything, one by one, thinking that all these simple FINITE figments of collective imagination are more than something you, as INFINITY created.
Or,
(Heading towards '1') Eternal Pursuit of Truth...where you confront this psychosis called reality head on, and realize that in the end it can ONLY be you that exists.

http://www.fink.com/papers/impossible_cube.png
An 'Absolute Truth', just like the idea of 'Absolute Zero' is an unattainable thing. Yet some of us choose to search for it. Hopefully, you are never satisfied at any point we are currently in, in this contradictory universe, because you would realize we are still at a meaningless truth. Even science is working within FINITE reasoning to explain INFINITY. Pretty redundant, no? Everything basically boils down to a contradiction. Any answer we get, will be followed with another question...endless loops...infinity...

The question you should ask yourself is, which direction in this paradox are you heading in this life?
Away from that self-realization, or towards it...

It's quite simple you either head towards, 'alpha' or 'omega', a '1' or a '0'...in this binary universe.
http://www.everythingforever.com/order-disorder.gif
http://www.everythingforever.com/ord...rder-order.gif
http://www.everythingforever.com/arrowoftime.jpg

Which are you?...'1'...or...'0'?

Naturally, I'm a '1' person myself. Not that it matters because zero and infinity are different degrees of the same value. :D

I am I numeber.

Quote:

---

"This distinction between past, present, and future
is only an illusion" -Albert Einstein
(snip)
It's quite simple you either head towards, 'alpha' or 'omega', a '1' or a '0'...in this binary universe.[/b]

---

But what does any of this mean outside of time, as time itself seems to be part of the illusion? How can one "head toward" anything?

For that matter, as all matter is wave as well as particle, what does matter even mean outside of time? (After all, a wave cannot be defined without a time element.)

If time is an illusion, then so must matter be.

How can we even define consciousness outside of time?

Your post could well end with the Einstein quote, methinks - as could all of "reality".

Q:How can we even define consciousness outside of time?

A:When you get there you wont need to. That's the point.


Any truth I say is a contradiction because this reality is a contradiction. If anyone disagrees, I'm ultimately just argueing with myself.



Buddhist monks would say once you realize the real truth behind everything all you have left to do is laugh because it's so absurd. :lol:

Ah. Of course.

Silly me.

I don't understand this. You're mixing together the concept of the physical universe and our mental state. Surely, a lucid dreamer and someone with a deep outlook on existence such as yourself should see that our consciousness exists independant of our physical state within this current world and life?
So what does the expanding universe have to do with self-realisation?
Also, I hope all the above isn't leading to the all-too-common blasphemy of "we are all ultimately part of one being in existence"? (Seeing how the meaning of existence is in experiences).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pj

Ah. Of course.

Silly me.
[/b]

---

You mean, Silly me.

er... :shock: :lol:


Be it telescope, or microscope...existence never ends...infinite

Thus it is pertinant to say, getting caught up in anything other than yourself is a distraction from the fact you are alone, would it not?

No because that is the same as saying there is only one being in existence, just with slightly different technicalities.

You are never alone. The meaning of existence may be in experiences but aside from physical experiences in this given realm we have mental ones and the most important of such is the interaction with other beings, the beings that exist aside each other and share their experiences.

Ok, so you choose to live in the dream, and escape the truth. That's fine by me.

Eternity alone obviously got boring that's why I'm here on my way back up to realizing that, right?

You hit the nail on the head. We're here because ultimate existence (the combination of ultimate knowledge and ultimate power) has no meaning in it. Any experiences would have no meaning unless we exist in a world with limits on both knowledge and power (ability).
However, don't make it sound like something lowly to not yearn for ultimate knowledge because I don't know about you but I, personally, won't want to be corrupted.
Power corrupts, knowledge corrupts. Thus, ultimate power corrupts ultimately, ultimate knowledge corrupts ultimately. I want to remain myself, I don't want to lose my identity and though I already have a way to access both the above mentioned I will not do so in fear of corruption, I will remain here and live a life of meaning.

I agree. As I poignantly posted in another thread. I envy those that cant or dont understand.

The less people know, the happier they are, and the more they want to know...
The converse: The more people know, the less happy they are, and the less they want to know...

Solid, Empty Nothing...You strive towards perfection only to do all you can to forget it once you get there...again, endless loops...infinity...wheeee :banana:

Two sides of the same coin..the universe... one giant... catch 22



That's mainly why I have the tattoo of happiness on the back of my neck where I know I'll never see it....knowing full and well anything I see in the mirror outside of 'self' isn't real happiness but quite rather it's opposite...true happiness is only found within...(the faint colored veiny look is intentionally added)
http://photos.friendster.com/photos/...005530604l.jpg
(Check it out, the character for happiness is actually + - = - + arranged vertically. I realized that when I tripping hardcore and saw everything broken down to it's simplest form)

Exactly, then why do you strive for it? I would see no reason to do so unless your current life has lost all meaning.

Lack of anything better to do? Pursuit of Truth?

If you knew anything you accomplished or did here held no meaning, pertinence, or relevance to truth, what do you do then? How can you just return to ignorance, forget what you realized, sit back, and enjoy the ride when you already know everything is of your mind? To me, existence has already been a joke for quite some time now.

Now, I just do things to pass my time where I have fleeting moments of forgetting I'm alone...such as this...er... :shock:

I think if I had a choice, I'd rather re-live life as random people, with no recollection of my previous life each time I come around.

I don't like the idea of knowing that I'm aware forever - it actually scares me - but maybe because I still haven't reached "enlightenment".

Having infinite loops living as person x - it would give me something to do in the meantime :wink:

Hold there, "everything is of my own mind"? Hah, that's the point, it isn't part of your mind, it isn't now, that's the meaning behind it.

In the end, I don't think you mean what you're saying to the full degree of dedication, however, I pity you for the reason that you have this outlook nonetheless. It can only mean that you have no true meaning in this life, no one to care for, no one to live for.

Notice how I said "no one" and not "nothing"? Exactly, just as I've said before, people are more important than objects/concepts. Don't take life for granted, it brings more than just physical experiences.

Edit: Scratch "physical", better to go with "selfish" but not in an insulting manner, in the literal sense of what the word means.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blade5x

I think if I had a choice, I'd rather re-live life as random people, with no recollection of my previous life each time I come around.

I don't like the idea of knowing that I'm aware forever - it actually scares me - but maybe because I still haven't reached "enlightenment".

Having infinite loops living as person x - it would give me something to do in the meantime :wink:
[/b]

---

As I said earlier... ignorance is bliss...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by blade5x

Hold there, "everything is of my own mind"? Hah, that's the point, it isn't part of your mind, it isn't now, that's the meaning behind it.

In the end, I don't think you mean what you're saying to the full degree of dedication, however, I pity you for the reason that you have this outlook nonetheless. It can only mean that you have no true meaning in this life, no one to care for, no one to live for.

Notice how I said "no one" and not "nothing"? Exactly, just as I've said before, people are more important than objects/concepts. Don't take life for granted, it brings more than just physical experiences.

Edit: Scratch "physical", better to go with "selfish" but not in an insulting manner, in the literal sense of what the word means.
[/b]

---

I guess, we all have our idols. I never saw people as that important, self-important maybe. But thats just another contradiction in a sea of contradiction.

Personally, I enjoy music if you haven't already checked out my signature. Doing music helps me forget, and just enjoy myself. It's a great meditative tool and it's great to impress yourself with something you didn't even know you created.

I dunno, realizing this fact isn't all bad. The more I realize everything is of me the more I seem to have 'coincidence'-esque situations where I can seemingly manipulate the things around me that, for all intents and purposes, shouldn't be able to.

There was this one time, where I got really angry about something and demonstrated how I saw the event unfold, and the moment I said to the person, LOOK. YOU'RE WRONG!!! there was a minor 5 second earthquake. It was such perfect timing it had us both doing double takes. Personally, I thought I was dreaming for a second then we started laughing at the sheer timing of it all. I'm sure it was coincidence but what is coincidence other than, two seemingly impossible events happening at the same time?

Another example recently, I was doing sit ups on the floor in my room, and finished. Suddenly, I had the urge to look at one of the 250+ records I have in record bags my room, for some odd reason (I used to be a DJ). I sat there thinking that was quite odd considering I had long since sold my turntables, and as I stared at the record, my cell phone rang. It turns out it was tower records letting me know the date on that SAME artist's upcoming album had been pushed back a month. Funny, because I didnt even remember asking them to call me as it had been so long ago...maybe 4-5months? You know what the title of the album was? BT: This Binary Universe... Those moments just make me laugh. :lol:

What else can you do in those moments other than laugh and say 'Why you little...I mean...Why me little...I mean?'. :shock:

hmmm...
meditate on LSD anyone ?

You may or may not have noticed that weird wicker basket around my friends head in our artist picture. That's actually him as a Komuso monk. The wicker baskets are to show their detachment from this reality.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi..._W._Silver.jpg
(Komuso monk playing shakuhachi...)

During the medieval period of Japan, shakuhachi were most notable for their role in the Fuke sect of Zen Buddhist monks, known as komuso ("priests of nothingness"), who used the shakuhachi as a spiritual tool. Their songs (called "koten honkyoku") were paced according to the players' breathing and were considered meditation (suizen) as much as music.
Travel around Japan was restricted by the shogunate at this time, but the Fuke sect managed to wrangle an exemption from the Shogun, since their spiritual practice required them to move from place to place playing the shakuhachi and begging for alms (one famous song reflects this mendicant tradition, "hi fu mi hachi gaeshi", "one two three pass the alms bowl"). They persuaded the Shogun to give them "exclusive rights" to play the instrument. In return, some were required to spy for the shogunate, and the Shogun sent several of his own spies out in the guise of Fuke monks as well. (This was made easier by the wicker baskets that the Fuke wore over their heads, a symbol of their detachment from the world.)
In response to these developments, several particularly difficult honkyoku pieces became well-known as "tests": if you could play them, you were a real Fuke (e.g. shika no tone). If you couldn't, you were probably a spy and might very well be killed if you were in unfriendly territory.


This has very little to do with my point but still interesting, none the less...(Sidenote: We add this instrument into our music.)

It seems most japanese have all but forgotten their own pasts...quite sad actually...
Now, superficiality is the prevalent power governing most people's sad existence. :whyohwhy:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SolSkye

What if I were to tell you that everyone and everything outside of yourself is a lie? Is that really so hard to believe? We do it to ourselves all the time in our dreams, how is this ANY different? We can only verify 'self' so why work from anywhere but there?[/b]

---

Have you been reading up on buddhism by any chance? Personally, I've just recently begun my journey on the Path and I know I have a lot to understand about the truth of reality and have a long way to go before I realise true enlightenment.

That being said, do you really believe in an infinite existence and yet YOU are the only thing that truly exists? If everything outside of one's self is a lie, wouldn't it be logical to assume that the self is also a lie? I wholeheartedly agree that it is unwise to look for truth in one's surroundings and one only needs to look within to find truth but I would also say that one should learn to live in harmony with the interconnected, interdependent nature of reality.

In order for what you said to be true, it would have to imply that the 'self' and infinity are two separate entities entirely.

Basically, what I've been saying is the 'self' IS infinity therefore, nothing else extending seemingly outward of you has any separation, distinction, or real meaning behind it. You are everything, and everything is you. Ultimately alone as one. self-imposed fragmentation as a distraction from that simple truth.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SolSkye

Basically, what I've been saying is the 'self' IS infinity therefore, nothing else extending seemingly outward of you has any separation, distinction, or real meaning behind it. You are everything, and everything is you. Ultimately alone as one. self-imposed fragmentation as a distraction from that simple truth.
[/b]

---

For the sake of the discussion, let's think of infinity as the ocean and you are one small drop of water. Would you say that your drop of water is the ocean? Or that everyone should think that their one drop of water is the only drop of water in the entire ocean? No.

I believe everything is connected, all of existence is one, but that is not to say I am the one. There is a subtle difference.

To see a difference, is to limit how big your drop is or can become. I see no difference. I am confident the more prevalent that feeling is the bigger that drop becomes until hopefully there is no more drop, only ocean.

At that time, by all rights who I am now will disappear and cease to matter the more one begins to understand.

Remember: The more you hold onto that separation, the more you limit yourself.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SolSkye

I am confident the more prevalent that feeling is the bigger that drop becomes until hopefully there is no more drop, only ocean.
[/b]

---

So you're going to absorb the universe?

Did you get this idea from the website you linked to in the beginning post or from your studies in a specific religion? The only reason I ask is that what your talking about sounds like the eastern, more-or-less buddhist idea of no ego except with a western, self-centered twist to it.

So basically, I say that one can become one with the ocean and you say that one can become the ocean.

I didn't take any of my thought process' from that site, or any religion really. I have found similar information in things outside myself, but put no stake in anything other than myself. Long story short, I've thought this way on my own for some time now. Basically, on that site I found some of the explanations and pictures pertaining to breaking everything down to absolutes, but by no means did I sit there and read everything on there so in no way can I endorse that site. Skimming it, I found it interesting, is all.


In any event, saying 'absorb' still shows that you see a distinction, a motivation, a separate ego. The more one realizes that there is no distinction the less our 'ego' (by societal definitions of the word) comes into play, or becomes necessary. That is the real thing current goverments fear losing. Losing their grip on people becoming self-aware. Only since the rise the materialistic ways of thinking of the west, have power domineering ways of thinking become the new pastime. Before that point, we as a species worked on ourselves and the world around us, as one.

Currently, on the whole, we have become sheep that have been bred to idolize material goods and superficiality. We look up to supermodels, and superstars as these important beings and in turn see ourselves as lesser beings, be it consciously or subconsciously. Most of us get caught up in all the trivial meaningless distractions of life, and try to do anything to keep from looking inwards; TV, shopping, and other mindless distractions at all times of the day. All there to keep you from looking inward. We are told to go to school, so we can get a job, in order to buy useless things we have been told we need. None of those things matter. As an interconnected unit, we have ignored ourselves far too long now. As a result, global population has spiraled out of control, we are at the brink of destroying our planet, and expending resources at a faster rate than we can replenish them without a care in the world. Why is that? In essence, if you ignore yourself, you ignore the environment around you... Other animals understand things more than we give them credit for.


We should be concentrating on ourselves, and truth, because we are infinity realizing itself. Some choose to acknowledge that fact while others hide from it in this meaningless material dream. It's coming back to bite us in the ass, though, as everything does. Everything always comes about full circle.

Let me get this right...

One becomes self aware by realizing that they have no self and that they are infinity? And therefore since all is contained within oneself, all the answers, the truth, can be had by merely looking within oneself? That the "physical" aspect of the universe does not exist since everything is a perception?

Well, no definitive 'self' in terms of the every day usage we use today. The word, 'self', should be as hard a word to get your head around as the word, 'infinity'. That doesn't mean you should stop trying or get caught up in distraction doing so.

This idea, however undefinable to us now, has to be attainable since we have the innate ability to begin to acknowledge the 'self'.

And what is "self" as per this everyday usage you speak of?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SolSkye

You are everything, and everything is you.
[/b]

---

No you aren't.

Don't you see the difference between these two statements? Everything is one. One is everything.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark75

And what is "self" as per this everyday usage you speak of?
[/b]

---

That self-imposed dissemination between entities...myself...yourself...so on and so forth. I thought that would be self-explanatory. Pardon the pun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Mark75

No you aren't.

Don't you see the difference between these two statements? Everything is one. One is everything.
[/b]

---

Hanging on wording won't get you anywhere. The basic gist of what you said, and what I said are the same thing. That could've easily been figured through the context. Now, your just attempting to be difficult. I'm not here to argue the color of red herring.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SolSkye

The basic gist of what you said, and what I said are the same thing.
[/b]

---

No, not really. You're equating the two statements and I say there is a difference.

Say I have a ball in my hand. Now while it's true that the universe is one, that does not mean the ball is the universe. You're just substituting your conscious self with the ball.

As I said before, your attempting to be difficult. There is no distinction, only distraction. This will be my last post regarding your distinction because it's not there. If you still have questions about it please take it up with me in a PM.

It DOES mean the conscious self is the universe because the universe is what created us. While you may mention any number of chicken and the egg scenerios, the fact is, our only verifiable point of truth is from within ourselves therefore those are our only gateways to understanding infinity from whence we came. Whether I blanket statment existence through the number one, or through something more understandable like the term, 'you', it's all inevitably the same.

But it is easily demonstrable that the ball is quite different from the human called Mark. You see, the ball is small, round, made of plastic and not attached to the human called Mark. Said human is made mostly of flesh and bone, and so long as the ball is not consumed by him, is found in a different location than the ball. Of course they are ultimately both composed of matter, and in a very strict and literal sense one could argue that they aren't "separate" on the grounds that they are "connected" with air, it really is quite easy to prove that they exist as separate entities when all we have to do is to merely add a few conditions for what qualifies as a separate entity. At the moment I can't really put it into words, so I'll use an example.

Imagine a clock sitting on a table.

If you selected a clock and a table instead of the entire universe, then you have the ability to discern separate entities. If you didn't have trouble imagining which part was the clock and which was the table, then you too have the power to understand what constitutes a separate entity.

Again, using the clock, I'd ask you to find its hour hand. If you were able to do that, then you have the ability to see that there is a difference between the whole and a part of the whole.

Now I ask you, would you say that an hour hand is a clock? Or that the hour hand has no individual existence aside from the clock?

The ability to discern difference doesn't make something different. It's only different, if you think it's different. Which, yes, is all a matter of perception. However, the fundamental reality of the situation is they are unequivocally indistinguishable from one another; the clock hand, the clock, and the table are all imagined or created of one thing- the mind. No matter how distinct you may see them in your mind as separate entities, ultimately they all boil down to one object, thought, or image in your mind. That is a perfect analogous breakdown of reality, as well.

really advanced incomprehensible stuff. filosofy rather than science I'd say.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SolSkye

The ability to discern difference doesn't make something different. It's only different, if you think it's different. Which, yes, is all a matter of perception. However, the fundamental reality of the situation is they are unequivocally indistinguishable from one another; the clock hand, the clock, and the table are all imagined or created of one thing- the mind. No matter how distinct you may see them in your mind as separate entities, ultimately they all boil down to one object, thought, or image in your mind. That is a perfect analogous breakdown of reality, as well.
[/b]

---

That's my point. Sure objects only exist as concepts which inherently only exist in one's own mind. But by this argument we would say that there is no universe (in the sense that it's an object composed of everything), only matter and energy. The only thing that could exist are the very smallest building blocks. Anything else would just be an arrangement of such blocks and therefore an object. But considering that we aren't able to see and manipulate the world at a subatomic level, it's rather useless to view things like this. To say that objects don't exist at all because the only truly exist as concepts is simply false.

"The ability to discern difference doesn't make something different."

If two things weren't different, there would be no difference to discern.

I think there is no universe, and it is all a collective dream. While I stand on one side, realizing that, and equal number wish not to, thus maintaining this farce. If one begins to see that, then through understanding infinity one can begin to supersede the need to be here.

And That's where we fundamentally agree to disagree.
I feel, your attentions should lie with this connection to infinity, not caught up in outside distraction. You, on the otherhand, revel in distraction, and are caught up in the intoxicating grandiose material side of things being separate. The Demiurge...

Neither of which are right or wrong. Just polar opposites that define the need for this existence- Eternal Escape of Truth, Vs. Eternal Pursuit of Truth.

Come again? You're the one saying the universe is a dream, but I'm caught in distraction? You tell me nothing has existence outside of the matter that it's composed of, and you tell me I'm caught up in "the intoxicating grandiose material side of things"? Agree to disagree? Or do you mean agree that I'm caught up in escaping the truth and that you're more enlightened than me?

Honestly, you'd think by what you said that conceptualizations weren't important or necessary for survival.

Are You Truely Self-aware?

I'm not sure.

Who are you?

I'm late I'm late no time to say goodbye hallow I'm late.

Would you like a cup of tea?

I'm aware that what SolSkye has said is not consistent with my illusion. Since it's all in my head and I'm making it up, I must be right because you're a figment of my imagination and the rules of logic are whatever I deem them to be. Therefore, I'm always right unless I don't want to be.

Now I'm going to concentrate really hard and make you explode.

The point of this discussion wasn't to compare who's better than who. I simply don't feel that way, because none of that matters when we are here. My allegorical allusions between reality and infinity were meant to draw your attention inward. Nothing more.

People these days are far too interested in what's happening outside of themselves that they don't even take the time to know themselves anymore, and become afraid at the slightest introspective glance inward, when in the end, that's all there is, and all that matters.

Obviously, what I have said disturbs you in some way. It should. Perhaps, it is unsettling the very fiber of what you hold dear. As I said, one shouldn't look any further than yourself for purpose, otherwise, you let yourself go to the wayside on autopilot. You may find distraction of self fun and interesting, I don't. That is all. There is no point in debating it further, if you fail to see that minute point.

Since we're on the topic: Among the many things you fail at is realizing that it's possible to understand oneself and things outside of oneself. And furthermore, that looking inside something is a terrible way of understanding things outside of that thing.

"I wonder what the cup is made of, but all I can tell is that it's full of water."

If you begin to understand yourself, the things outside yourself will cease to bear meaning other than distraction. That distinction I talked about will disintegrate, as well . You simply cannot justify yourself, through other things. It simply cannot happen. If you think you can do so, I hate to break it to you but, you would only be living a lie.

That would certainly explain why these thought provoking ideas that force a good look inward, would cause you to be so angry. If you justify your existence through others, you should be.

For someone who supposedly doesn't look outwards, you claim to know me pretty well.

Too bad you're just making crap up.

Why the terse hostility when I never showed any towards you then? Think what you must...

Because unlike you, I don't waste my time with eloquence in an attempt to mask my condescending implications. Quite simply, you were making crap up. You don't have a shred of a clue how well I do or do not understand myself. And yet we clearly can see your claims to the contrary in the above posts.

To answer your question, my terse hostility stems from the fact that the crap you just posted was baseless and insulting. I'm not going to humour that as actually relevant or even logical philosophy.

That's fine. Again, think what you must. No one told you that you needed to join the conversation, and obviously it struck a personal nerve. Just label me a pagan, and move on then.

buh-bye. :okbyenow:

Yes it did. I just get tired of coming to this forum and reading junk like this. Go look at your first post and look at the pictures you used. If that doesn't convince you it was stupid, then I won't even bother.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SolSkye

No one told you that you needed to join the conversation...
[/b]

---

Forgiveness! I didn't realize you'd received an official request to start this thread in the first place.

:okbyenow:

k, buh-bye now. Don't let the meaning of existence hit you on the way out. :okbyenow:


In case any of you happen to be a bit confused like Mark75 there, heres a somewhat similar explanation that someone else did on video...
Reality: The Neurological Experience

I found this very interesting as well...
Dream and Reality
(In case you don't make the time to watch, here's the basic idea)
"The moment you suspect whether it's dream or reality, you will come out of the dream. You can always see. Whenever you seriously suspect what you seeing, your awareness and attention will be turned towards the seer. Now, as long as you don't suspect the reality of what you are seeing your awareness will never be turned towards the seer." -Paramahamsa Nithyananda

Binary System...
Matter and Energy...Zero and One

It's not anything new I'm realizing here. This is something anyone can understand if one only took the time to be self-aware and see.

If it depresses you to know the true nature of reality then you don't truly understand.

Wow. Interesting post. I had these similar discussions over 25 years ago when I was still in high school. Needless to say that then, as now, most people, including adults, had no concept of self-realization. The teachings of Paramahansa Yogananda were very helpful in clarifying what I had experienced in my life. I have the advantage of age and the years to study the many philosophies of being so I have to agree with what Solskye is trying to convey. I have said in many posts that to truly be lucid you must be the dreamer AND the dream.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jedimind

If it depresses you to know the true nature of reality then you don't truly understand.
[/b]

---

I couldn't have said it better myself.

Totally agree with above post.

I'm not 'happy' by societal definitions of the word. The large majority throw around that word like they throw around the word, love. Pretty much like it's going out of style. No one really knows what that word means, nor do they know what the word 'self' means. While this distraction is fun and everything, it's not true happiness. True happiness, like love, is found away from existence, away from this distraction, and within yourself. True happiness and love come from a love of 'self', and nothing else.

Any moment anyone spends living it up in this existence isn't true happiness. I'm sorry, but it isn't. Anyone caught up in the material lie, is just living in the intoxication of the dream. When you live on the surface, you get surface-level emotions. When you delve a little deeper, you realize how trivial those surface-level emotions are.

Think of an upperclassman high-school senior, who thinks they are on top of the world, never realizing how small their pond actually is. At the time, they may seem extremely happy. But is that real happiness? How could they know they are happy if they don't know the true meaning of the word, or realize the 'reality' and levity of their situation? Just as someone becomes infatuated with someone of the opposite sex for the first time...equally meaningless. not love.

That's what I really was trying to say. People are too quick to claim to find happiness outside of self. That's where, 'the less they know, the happier they are', comes into play.

It's more like, '...the happier they seem'.

I've told you this before. You're missing the meaning of life and focusing fully on the meaning of existence. Any given life such as this one is different from the whole of existence. We aren't in this given life now to think back on ultimate existence and sulk over nothing having meaning. That's what you're missing - the meaning.

There is no meaning to it, that's just it. We create meaning where there is none in order to keep ourselves entertained. Even me realizing that, is as equally pointless as you thinking there is all this deep-seated meaning. There simply is no point.

Just as a person in solitary confinement for long periods of time, becomes a paranoid schizophrenic and creates delusional characters to cope with the isolation. We all collectively create our coping mechanisms...nothing more.

I view my time spent in the current incarnation as simply taking a vacation. It is very much like the much wished for talent of total dream control. Once you obtain dream omnipotence it becomes very boring over time, such as 35 years worth. The irony is that once you reach that state you then spend time trying NOT to control your dreams. It is at that point that the beauty of randomness is truly revealed and fully appreciated. The hilarious aspect is that the destination that you were originally seeking ends up being right were you started. It is the experience of the journey(s) that becomes the reward. We desperately seek that which we already possess. A grand joke that we play on ourselves, not out of cruelty, but rather out of necessity.

I definitely feel you on that one. Well said.

I also completely agree with the above post.

To make my post nice and simple, I find myself in the number 1 category. Though , this thread did make me smile. Because I remember questioning this myself years back. Except without all the scientific words.

Oh, for blazes sake. If you all don't see the meaning of life in the concept of society then what are you still doing alive?

Suicide => enter a new life => realise it's "meaningless" => repeat.

Case in point, you live and you have those you care for, to any extent. Without anyone at all to the slightest degree special to you there would indeed be absolutely no point to life even from the subjective point of view (sadness/depression due to loneliness, etc.). Don't understimate the concept of other beings in existence, it's really quite insulting.

Insulting? Only a person who sees the meaning of life in human society could be insulted by a differing opinion. Seriously, society is the meaning of life? :eek: Wow, dude.

And just because I see life as a fleeting illusion does not mean I'm going to commit suicide because of it. When you become lucid, do you immediately commit suicide because it's only a dream? No, you continue and explore.

Personally, I see life as a wonderful experience but I try not to put any meaning where there is none to begin with.

The other day, while I was clearing my mind and meditating I was realizing that since we can't really confirm anything existing outside of ourselves, how can we confirm or truely understand the idea of movement? Especially, if there really isn't any separation between anything? We readily accept the current laws of physics that govern our rock without question, but we really don't understand the idea of movement or speed. Do you really think you are driving at 60mph because the car says so? Let's think about speed and movement on a grand scale and ask ourselves this question again...

We (as a whole consciousness) merely bend ourselves to accept what we perceive in front of us as movement. We accept the laws of physics that govern the movement of the car we perceive driving down the road at 60mph on Earth. We accept the laws of physics that govern our planet to keep us 'stopped' at a stoplight. When in actuality, The earth is rotating on it's axis at 1000 miles per hour. Not to mention, Earth is also moving around the Sun at about 67,000 miles per hour. And how quickly we forget, that everything in our universe, including our sun and earth, is expanding outward, away from the singularity that spawned it at the speed of light of 670,616,629.384 miles per hour.

Ok, so even if we supposedly come to that stoplight, don't forget; we are always moving at least 670,684,629.384 miles through space, every hour of every day. Hard to wrap your head around, I know.

Just think about that next time you 'think' you are only moving at 60mph down the road. Just how fast are you moving?...Perhaps, not at all ;)

Nice input! I've been thinking about that too. :) It's strange we don't even feel the slightest that we are not moving so extremely fast, though :P

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BohmaN

Nice input! I've been thinking about that too. :) It's strange we don't even feel the slightest that we are not moving so extremely fast, though :P
[/b]

---

But it's quite reasonable that we don't feel it, it's all we know. The question is, what would it be like if it all stopped? :content:

We're born into it. Just as a baby fast asleep wouldn't be able to comprehend or perceive a plane in mid flight if it were to wake up for the in-flight meal.

Yet we still attach meaningless digits to an idea we still can't comprehend. Funny stuff. We assign rational where there is none to begin with...

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SolSky
Yet we still attach meaningless digits to an idea we still can't comprehend. Funny stuff. We assign rational where there is none to begin with...

---

So true...

Just joining after five pages of... I'm not sure what all this has been yet, really. But it's surprisingly orderly.

SolSkye, in complaining about how we make a big deal of 60mph while the earth is hurtling around at a hojillion miles a minute, I have to ask... are you valuing the cosmic perspective over our own? Is it actually petty of us to think in terms of inches and minutes and grams when the scope of the universe so far exceeds those paltry measurements?

...I mean, should we, as you suggest, treat the velocity of a car with disdain by dividing it by the speed of light? What does that serve, and what does it get us other than disillusionment and a sense of alienation and pointlessless in the world's grand schemes? We perceive the world in the minute terms we do because they serve us well, get us where we need to go, and give us a useful way to size up our surroundings. How is thinking on the scale of a planet, or a star, or a molecule, more worthwhile?

I wasn't complaining or saying something is more worthwhile, so I really don't see where you misconstrued my thoughts as such.

I was just attempting to point out to others that nothing here is of any more or less importance or value than anything else. We all collectively head in seemingly random directions in this infinite rat race ever-determined to make some sort of lasting difference or impact within the unchanging power of infinity. I just find every facet of this conundrum called existence, humorous and contradictory at the same time, so why not talk about the one fact that there simply is no rhyme or reason behind anything and it is all one big delusion of self?

When you realize existence for what it is, you can kick off your shoes and enjoy yourself. or hate it. Either way, no direction you take within the dichotomy of existence really matters. And that was my point, or rather, expressing the lack thereof.

Catch 22 universe coming at ya! ;)

Thread necromancer! Burn him!

I think you should take your philosophy one step further. You end on the note, "ultimately, there's no right context to the universe, it's essentially meaningless." But I personally see as much teleology and betrayal of an assumed purpose in claiming that the universe is purposeless as I see in claiming that it's going somewhere, or many places, or backwards, or in on itself, or in any other direction or for any other end-goal imaginable. It's the same assumption of wisdom you can't have, and saying we're going nowhere is still an assertion that we're moving in some sort of direction, even if it's a nonexistent.

Anyways, I think you're claiming the universe is purposeless so you can veto human-manifested purpose: you're saying, "well check it out, you can walk a thousand miles and see a lot of things, have plans and values and schemes and dreams and act on all of them and make a grand narrative of your life, but at the end of the day it will fall to shambles under the inscrutable omnipresence of the universe's purposelessness." Why does the immutable lack of purpose driving the universe have to bar us from creating true purpose beyond that cosmic backdrop of nihilism?

You've already said no perspective is any better than another, so why value the cosmic perspective over the human in claiming that human purpose can never stick or be worthwhile?

And certainly from a subjective human standpoint (one we all experience), certain perspectives ought to serve us better and be valued more because they contribute to a greater or lesser degree to subjective experiences that, to us, have intrinsic worth: happiness, and the pursuit thereof. I've been content for some time to busy myself with things that make me happy, or at least less unhappy, and I've formed purpose out of my surroundings to suit that goal. Am I blindered to follow this route, narrower as it is than the cosmic viewpoint you want to drill the point home with?

Acknowledging that universal standpoint is fine, but I just see no reason to dwell on it or return to it as a home base when there are more relevant (to my sense of worth, to my happiness) viewpoints for me to see the world with. One isn't objectively better than the other, but I believe one - mine, the human perspective - subjectively is.

I suppose when you think with an ego (not that I'm not guilty of that sometimes) you would have to think in terms of one method of thinking being better than the other. But, I simply don't think in those terms (most of the time). I am not telling people how to think or live but rather to realize that their way is not only an inevitable one, but necessary. It's futile to fight the current you created or didn't create for your 'self'. Now, if you also realize yourself as that current you can allow your 'self' to be swept with the infinite flow.

The universal construct is more a way of thinking of; 'live, and let live' or 'go with the flow', and the ability to truely let things slide. Even as I type this, Im reminded of how I force myself to interact with my other selves and how this intriguing nature of the unknown (regardless of the result), is the gift I gave myself.

I'll say it one last time, your way of thinking is no better than mine, or a serial killers' for that matter. Your sense of separation, and self-worth is just a tool to help you sleep at night and drive forward with confidence in a given direction, just as my realization of the nature of all things is to me. I'm not asking you to dwell on it, I'm asking you to do what feels comfortable to you, because that's all you or anyone would've done, anyway. I find that from the universal standpoint I can't be so easily caught up in the small things... or as I put them, 'the finite figments...'

I find the small things the only ones worth dealing with, day-to-day.

Anyways, we're in a roundabout race, both coming to the conclusion that we don't know anything and yet betraying ourselves in acknowledging that we at least know that, the fault of which prompts the other to cry ego alert and try to negate the transgression by saying it themselves, back-and-forth.

i am not you . it is lonely though . but monks that all look like they are the same light , exactly, they tripping, we all have the same light plus our self. that why i rap bout flowers and homeboy rap bout bees. um yeah iv thought like you, but look at girls , girls know more. we like god, but we aint . philosophies in general suck, it takes all that clear light that every one rappin about, and it turns it into a maze.

yeah it does seem like somthing is about to happen. good+evil+time+ selfactualization and high speed conections +fate+ chance+ randomness+ and love = somthing big .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fairytale

i am not you . it is lonely though . but monks that all look like they are the same light , exactly, they tripping, we all have the same light plus our self. that why i rap bout flowers and homeboy rap bout bees. um yeah iv thought like you, but look at girls , girls know more. we like god, but we aint . philosophies in general suck, it takes all that clear light that every one rappin about, and it turns it into a maze.[/b]

---

As unusually as that is worded...it's exactly my point.
The essence of this topic is that you're telling everyone to forget their lives because they have no meaning in the end.
But that is their meaning! What is happening now! We strive for goals in the future, yes. But as we do, we live our lives and experience them. If you want to look at it from the "mechanical"/technical perspective: the meaning of existence is in experiences - simple. From the human perspective: the most meaningful experiences are interaction with others.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fairytale

i am not you . it is lonely though . but monks that all look like they are the same light , exactly, they tripping, we all have the same light plus our self. that why i rap bout flowers and homeboy rap bout bees. um yeah iv thought like you, but look at girls , girls know more. we like god, but we aint . philosophies in general suck, it takes all that clear light that every one rappin about, and it turns it into a maze.[/b]

---

You completely lost me with your lack of organized thought, but if your point was to convey the complete randomness and pointlessness of it all then I agree with you! If not, I think you need to spend more time getting your thoughts together before you post in a thread let alone a philosophy one. I appreciate the effort, though.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by fairytale

As unusually as that is worded...it's exactly my point.
The essence of this topic is that you're telling everyone to forget their lives because they have no meaning in the end.
But that is their meaning! What is happening now! We strive for goals in the future, yes. But as we do, we live our lives and experience them. If you want to look at it from the "mechanical"/technical perspective: the meaning of existence is in experiences - simple. From the human perspective: the most meaningful experiences are interaction with others.[/b]

---

We've been over this multiple times, that is YOUR self-imposed meaning of existence, but the hard reality of it is- there is NO meaning behind it. It's about as meaningful as watching an episode of 'Family Guy'. End of Discussion.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SolSkye

We've been over this multiple times, that is YOUR self-imposed meaning of existence, but the hard reality of it is- there is NO meaning behind it. It's about as meaningful as watching an episode of 'Family Guy'. End of Discussion.[/b]

---

You argue that there is no truth, but you are pretty emphatic about it. If it doesn't really matter, shouldn't you just let us have our way? I don't think you're living your philosophy.

I AM letting you have your way, as I've already said countless times in response to the people questioning this thread. People continually forget that I'm not the one interjecting in someone elses' thread. If you don't like or agree with this breakdown of reality then why exactly are you posting in here? What is compelling these people to post the same meaningless point over and over again? I can only think that people are scared I might be right and it somehow gives them some solace to voice their disapproval of the whole intuitive futility of it all. I'm just breaking it down for people, what you choose to do after realizing that fact, is up to you. I'm sorry about bursting bubbles, but sugarcoating existence is just that...sugarcoating.

Thinking about the glass being half-full or half-empty doesn't change the fact that there's only one glass. At least I'm being forthright with the situation. I'm not being negative or positive, I'm just being real. All ways of thinking are equally meaningless, including mine...period.

The internet is a funny tool sometimes, because ones emotions or lack thereof can't really be expressed through the typed symbols we use to communicate. My use of caps wasn't from a heated passionate emphatic feeling to change you, but rather to show how puzzling it is that certain people keep drawing all these deep-seated meanings behind existence, and even more puzzling these same people would feel it necessary to speak their opinion when the initial point of truth behind everything is staring you directly in the face. If you aren't ready to understand the idea I'm presenting here, then it's quite simple- just keep thinking your way is special and move on to another topic. There really isn't anything getting accomplished by bringing up an old point that was already refuted and beaten into the ground 5 pages ago. I'm all about hearing new ideas and reaching new levels of insight, so if you have something new to say I'm all ears. Otherwise, don't bore me with the trivial opinionated nonsense.

Damn, there's too long to read but I have to agree with:
-Ignorance is a bliss
-Finite and infinite are the same
-some other stuff I can't remember
-The point is that there is no point
I just wanted to say, that's all folks.

The reason why it seemed pertinent to me is that you yourself brought it up in reference to why you believe we are not fully self-aware. I don't agree with your evidence, and so instead of skipping a step and arguing against your conclusion, I'd thought I'd break down your evidence instead and explain why I think different conclusions could be drawn from it. This is general practice in debate.

Sorry, man. Off-topic stuff was removed. If you must continue, please do it in PM. Thanks.

Yes, the off topic stuff was removed. This won't be done again, and it is not an available option for the off-topic forums, so don't ask again.

The ONLY thing we will do from now on is CONSIDER locking threads, and only at the request of the member who originated the thread. And just because it is requested doesn't mean it will be done.

My decision to cooperate with this one may well be over-ridden. That remains to be seen.

The off topic forums are not closely moderated. The litter goes with the territory.

Thanks for hearing me out.

Recently I created an electronic/breakbeat song inspired by this idea, in which I attempt to sing. All sounds, including the wind sounds, were made using our new equipment with no use of samples or loops. I'm sure you can imagine that a lot of countless hours went into it, but it was fun. Another version with a better recording of the vocals, my partner in crime's backup vocals for the second half, and his addition of live japanese bamboo flute will be added to this monster later. Consider this an instrumental beta version? Heh.

Anyway, check out the link in my signature, if you got the time. Peace. (^o^)v

'At The Brink', Lyrics:
As you reallign your blurry vision,
You're bound to find your neither dead or living.

As you cast aside what you believe in,
There's no smile or cry that can hide this feeling.

Universal mind don't you know your dreaming?
Neither you nor I has a truth worth seeking.

As you reach inside of your decision,
Open up your mind but there's only one listening.

Eternity is NOW and it's time to realize this but in not realizing it we are playing this game that we have been playing for eternity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SolSkye

What if I were to tell you that everyone and everything outside of yourself is a lie? Is that really so hard to believe? We do it to ourselves all the time in our dreams, how is this ANY different? We can only verify 'self' so why work from anywhere but there?

As the self-aware self, we need to step away from any separation we may have from any object here. Remember, we all came from the FINITE objects within INIFINTY, right? That means we, too, are INFINITY... Now it's time to try and be aware of that fact...

(If you followed some of my previous posts perhaps you'll recognize this)
There are two things we can choose to do in this life...

(Heading towards '0') Eternal Escape of Truth...where you remain in the middle of this dream taking turns being everyone and everything, one by one, thinking that all these simple FINITE figments of collective imagination are more than something you, as INFINITY created.
Or,
(Heading towards '1') Eternal Pursuit of Truth...where you confront this psychosis called reality head on, and realize that in the end it can ONLY be you that exists.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SolSkye

It's quite simple you either head towards, 'alpha' or 'omega', a '1' or a '0'...in this binary universe.

---

i've tried to read through a lot of this thread, but i'm sure i've missed stuff, so i'll apologize in advance. i agree with some things that have been said, but definitely disagree with others.

here's my biggest issue: do people seriously believe in a "binary universe"? really?? a) you believe in a single, capital-T, defining Truth that you have found, and b) you believe people can only be escaping it or pursuing it, one or the other? on truth, i don't believe in it. on binaries, they are a fabrication. our construction of language and the direction society has taken has led us to find it idyllic to reduce everything to some computerized representation through 0's and 1's. we thrive on oppositions--heaven and hell, life and death, black and white, up and down, good and evil, etc. i would agree that we have a binary society, but not an inherently binary universe. that's not the way i think we should be perceiving. i don't have a perfect answer, but i think things are a lot more complex, nuanced, and chaotic than that.

i'm not trying to be antagonistic, so let me know if there's something i'm not understanding.

While this binary system isn't the ultimate truth I spoke of that ever eludes us, it is a practical one.

The link I posted on the first page really does an excellent job explaining the order to the chaos... Admist seemingly complex chaotic groupings, no matter how complex and chaotic they may seem, they always boil down to an alpha and omega. Of course, I realized this on my own without having to read that page but it admittedly does a better job than I could do explaining it.


HERE is the link again. In case you can't or don't make the time to read it here is the main idea taken directly from the site....


"The electrons in a carbon atom in the human brain are connected to the subatomic particles that comprise every salmon that swims, every heart that beats, and every star that shimmers in the sky. Everything interpenetrates everything, and although human nature may seek to categorize and pigeonhole and subdivide the various phenomena of the universe, all apportionments are of necessity artificial and all of nature is ultimately a seamless web."
— Michael Talbot
http://www.everythingforever.com/contrast.gif
http://www.everythingforever.com/grouping-symmetry.gif
http://www.everythingforever.com/generic2.gif
http://www.everythingforever.com/st-rings.gifhttp://www.everythingforever.com/st-web.jpghttp://www.everythingforever.com/st-wood.jpghttp://www.everythingforever.com/st-daisy.jpghttp://www.everythingforever.com/solar_sys2.jpghttp://www.everythingforever.com/whirlpool-sm.jpghttp://www.everythingforever.com/modis_strip-tn.jpghttp://www.everythingforever.com/or-waves.jpg

http://www.everythingforever.com/transition-bulb.gif

Forgive me if I'm late, I have a few things to talk about.

I don't understand how those diagrams are relevant. Can you please explain them?

And Solskye, I can't believe you haven't expanded on your philosophy from your viewpoint. I mean, tell us about how you believe. What's it like everyday in your life? Do you think I am you? What do you think of your parents? How does this increase emotion?

I’m not trying to be difficult here, but: If I understand correctly, every other human being, and anything else in existence is perceived as you, right? So why is it that you can only control your own body and mind? And how can you be taught and learn from people, if you are the only one?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SolSkye

The less people know, the happier they are, and the more they want to know...
The converse: The more people know, the less happy they are, and the less they want to know...

---

Haha, yeah. When I was a young kid, everything made sense.

Sometimes it’s “The more people know, the more they want to know…”

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SolSkye

Currently, on the whole, we have become sheep that have been bred to idolize material goods and superficiality. We look up to supermodels, and superstars as these important beings and in turn see ourselves as lesser beings, be it consciously or subconsciously. Most of us get caught up in all the trivial meaningless distractions of life, and try to do anything to keep from looking inwards; TV, shopping, and other mindless distractions at all times of the day. All there to keep you from looking inward. We are told to go to school, so we can get a job, in order to buy useless things we have been told we need. None of those things matter. As an interconnected unit, we have ignored ourselves far too long now. As a result, global population has spiraled out of control, we are at the brink of destroying our planet, and expending resources at a faster rate than we can replenish them without a care in the world. Why is that? In essence, if you ignore yourself, you ignore the environment around you... Other animals understand things more than we give them credit for.

---

So if you have believed that YOU are everything, why hasn’t your world changed for the better? Is that what you mean?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jedimind

If it depresses you to know the true nature of reality then you don't truly understand.

---

We would be lucky if anyone understands true nature of reality. Not even scientists know.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Merlock

Oh, for blazes sake. If you all don't see the meaning of life in the concept of society then what are you still doing alive?

Suicide => enter a new life => realise it's "meaningless" => repeat.

Case in point, you live and you have those you care for, to any extent. Without anyone at all to the slightest degree special to you there would indeed be absolutely no point to life even from the subjective point of view (sadness/depression due to loneliness, etc.). Don't understimate the concept of other beings in existence, it's really quite insulting.

---

I feel for you to some point, however, you can’t tell someone to have a certain meaning of life. Ones meaning of life is based on the morals, culture and the attitude of the individual. Don’t take it personally what Solskye’s views are either.

I used to think of life in terms of the latest coverage from science. Despite the point of this thread, science says we are chemical bodies; we are chemical reactions. But then, so what about science? Science doesn’t really prove anything, does it? People can’t say, “Oh I don’t believe in religion, I believe in science” it’s just stupid. Think about it. Are we alive? Then why? Going back, surely the beginning of everything, known as the “Big Bang” can’t just ‘bang’ when there is nothing to begin with. So there is no point in existing? That’s where religion overrules science. Being human, it just feels wrong, for everything to exist because of an accident, because of nothing, because of no one. Even if our conscience might be an illusion, the point remains the same. That’s where Solskye’s philosophy comes in. It is the most interesting and most reasonable to date (for me), if I’m understanding it properly.

As I've said before: Things change, but nothing really changes. We, as a whole cast the dice and believe we are shifting our consciousness 4 steps forward or backward when the piece we control and move is still the same. Components of ourselves just shift in accordance to balance out the supposed change of mind. As you lengthen life expectancy and improve standards of living, global population spirals out of control and we hurt other ecosystems and species. As things get better on the micro, they get worse on the macro. There simply is no free gain. Sure, you can think your life is better or worse than it was yesterday, but that really isn't the case. You life is no better or worse than it is RIGHT NOW. It's all a matter of how you perceive a given moment, the moment itself however, always remains the same... And, that's the sad (or happy?) truth of it. The pursuit of something better is the lie. We are a single objective rational mind confusing itself with subjective irrational experiences.

So, even if I did explain to you my subjective terms of how great or piss-poor the state of my life and mind are in right now, it really is of no consequence. I simply am what I always have been...and THAT realization is priceless. Unlike the subjective shell I inhabit.

Heres's something I just came up with to sum it all up;
It doesn't matter what you are, it doesn't matter what you see. Cuz, you're always gonna be, what you're always gonna be. Ever-changing dance of duality.

So if we weren't being confused by irrational experiences, what would we be doing?

If anything, just be happy. :) Even if it doesn't matter, or change anything, we all know it is better, even you do, you can't deny that, surely.

I think of it this way: We cast the dice, when there is a playing board - and until it is gone, the dice are useless.

If almost everything is considered useless with the real truth, then why should it be searched for? Isn't it pointless?

Here's the thing I've also said before...

The dice, the playing board, and the piece are ultimately the same, though. Just as lucid dream characters would try and convince you otherwise about your realization of the dream. It still doesn't make the dream any less a creation of your mind.

While, yes, like any dream it is pointless... therein lies the point. If we weren't confused by these irrational experiences we would probably just be this ceaseless thought of, I AM. Pretty much how a baby in the womb seems before it gathers any of it's experiences. Just remember though, the next time you feel you have to do or attain something in order to be happy or content, none of it is really necessary or amounts to anything in the end, anyway. It's all just one big roller coaster ride of the self. Not real, but not fake, either. A contradiction...free of any real meaning or purpose. Kind of like something I came across from Bill Hicks, Positive Drug Story...anyway, this realization is nothing new

Therefore, you can feel as happy or as sad as you've ever felt at any moment in time for as long as you please. That is, if one was aware enough to know that it's all in your head, anyway.

Although, even feeling good for too long would become a nightmare...that's where having balance comes in. Learning to accept both the parts of yourself, not just one.

Definitely a very interesting topic.

So Solskye, are you truly self aware? You mentioned before that you are 'naturally a 1'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

Definitely a very interesting topic.

So Solskye, are you truly self aware? You mentioned before that you are 'naturally a 1'.

---

Meh, I would like to say so. However, I do know this one thing; I will ALWAYS be on the move. Because as Newton broke it down, an object at rest tends to stay at rest, and an object already in motion tends to stay in motion with constant speed in a straight line path unless acted upon by an unbalanced force.

Since the eternal moment is all interconnected parts of themselves (past, present, future, everyone, and everything), by association that would mean eternity, itself, could never come to a complete standstill at either end of the spectrum because that would then negate all of existence- or the eternal timeless moment as it stands... RIGHT NOW.

So, basically what a '1' person is actually attempting to reach for is an impossibility, and likewise, what a '0' person is striving to reach for is equally impossible...both viewpoints are salmon swimming against currents created of themselves...Catch 22 universe...YIPPEE:banana:

Essentially, both paths are meaningless and pointless directions within the dichotomy of your ever-changing self. But again, since you are indeed in motion at this very moment that means you could never truly reach a complete standstill, or you'd be in that standstill eternally... which of course includes, RIGHT NOW... so learn to how to enjoy the balance and chaos of yourself and you can slow yourself to a manageable, and comfortable level of control, nearing that of perfection but knowing you'll never quite get there. Because, that's about as good as it gets. :D


Here's some lyrics to a new song I'm working on, called 'Teardrops'...

I'd follow you forever,
Like the teardrops in my mind.

Footprints of the lonliness,
For you to find.

One step away from darkness,
Two steps from the truth,
Three steps from the mirror,
That reveals me to you.


It's my first song where I attempt to write about the idea of love. Pretty trippy imagery, if you ask me. I prefer darker, deeper, mind-boggling imagery to something surface-level in thought, simple, and boring like, 'You and me driving down the strip in a car together'...YUCK! :barf:

Anyway, I'll letcha know when I finish it. So far, I only have a 8 bar beat and phrase. I really need to evolve it more.

For those that are interested, I just finished the Instrumental Version of 'Teardrops'. I would put the lyrics in there but I'd honestly prefer a woman to sing them.

Click the signature link to check it out. :cool:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SolSkye

For those that are interested, I just finished the Instrumental Version of 'Teardrops'. I would put the lyrics in there but I'd honestly prefer a woman to sing them.

Click the signature link to check it out. :cool:

---

Nice tunes! I thought the arp in the background was a little too continuous but perhaps with vocals, the whole focus could change.

Good work.

Hey, and how did you come across that website in your first post? It's wow.

I came across that site randomly, actually...

No one else have anything interesting or insightful to add to this thread? :(

How many times are you going to revive your dead thread?

What's it to you?

Your condescension and off-topic noise was previously removed. Obviously you aren't welcome or wanted in this discussion, so simply take a deep breath...and click another topic...

Seriously, does it hurt your eyes that much to see someone elses topic you couldn't positively contribute to, at the top?

Grow up...

Still dodging questions I see.

Irrelevance requires no need for a response...

Now slink back from whence you came, before I have call a mod to clean up your mess again... :rolleyes:

Ok, I have a quesiton.

Does this embrace non-dualism?

By this, do you mean this thread? If so, then sure. Anything goes in infinity... ;)

Self awareness is one thing, Self realization is another. The desriptions rendered throughout this topic do demonstrate keen awareness, but seems to lack the compassion that flows with realization.

Compassion is not a requisite of realization...

Again, that's one's own subjective judgement as to what determines compassion or non-compassion...some people weep for their mother...others for mankind...others for themselves... all situations are the same...

Are eternal lament, and pity something of be-reverence? Yes, and No...All modes of thinking are worthy of equal respect and disrespect...

The tumultuous journey that got you to who you are now should be loved and hated at the same instant...so you wholly understand the duality that got you there. Stick too much with one thing and stagnation occurs...Eternal lament gets just as old as eternal happiness.

I follow my own common sense...as should anyone.

As soon as you start your experience here, the subjection begins. Row your boat in whatever direction you want...just don't start shooting cannons at other people's ships and you're ok.

(^o^)v

your part of my entity, for infinity.

Self awarenes is just that, a keen awarenes of Self beyond the self. A Perception that falls just short of actually experiencing the Being of it.

Self Realization is the direct experience of Self, "seeing" as Self. Seeing as such one knows without doubt what such is.

When one has the experience, Energy of the self is percieved as an inward flow towards ones Self. Energy of the Self, however is percieved as an outward pouring, a flow from Self towards all that is.

With Self awareness the ego self is yet strongly intertwined with the perception. Defensiveness, despair, and such are still present. One has not at this point seen definitavely the reality of the self. One has not yet truly began to let go of the duality nor the illusion. The ego self still clouds "the view."

With Self realization the ego self begins to fade, to die for all intents and purposes. Indifference to the dualism grows. Pleasure/pain right/wrong, criticism/praise do not stir one.

Compassion is not a requisite, it is a product, a product of the movement of energy outwards. One is compassion, as compassion looks outwards, not inwards.

One who has seen knows that there is no despair. No disheartening perception to experience. All there is is Bliss and Love, deep seated compassion for those individual selves that arise from Self.

(in response to the initial post):

beautiful. I understand it perfectly.

the truth is...there is no truth, and that's the truth.

I was just thinking about it this morning actually, the splendor of the universe, of existence...it's genious.

it's true, once you see it, all there is left to do is laugh.

(great thread Solskye. I will read all the replies when I get the chance.)

One, or 'Ohm' is both compassion and indifference...Again, too much of one method of the duality thinking leaves you unable to relate to the other... creating another subjective wall of seperation.

http://www.bestcelticjewelry.com/mem.../Om_Symbol.jpg
The Absolute
AUM (OM, OHM) within Hinduism symbolizes the unborn non-dualistic, omnispresent,
impersonal Absolute, which incoperates all forms of life; which is life. The sacred AUM
symbol above represents both the unmanifest, nirguna, and manifest, saguna,
aspects of the Absolute. By sound and form, AUM symbolizes the infinite Brahman*
(ultimate reality).
• A stands for Creation
• U stands for Preservation
• M stands for Destruction or dissolution

What do you think Buddhist monks are chanting when they go into their trance....
SIMPLY AMAZING
Heard here
Seen again here...wait til the last second
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUMMMMMMMMMMM MMMMM
...they are each able to split their vocal chords into three different tones...which shouldnt be possible...one for each of the three A... U... M...

In order to have TRUE compassion you have equal amount of indifference in order to respect that there will never be 100% Love and Bliss and there will never be 100% Hatred and Death...because the absolute alpha and omega doesn't actually exist in the eternal moment as it stands...NOW (The preservation, if you will)...if it truely did this eternal moment would be null and void...

Ambivalence... towards reality is the only real objective view...

What you described about there ONLY being love and bliss with awareness, while admittedly a nice way to look at it, was unfortunately still subjective...Sorry to break it to you...

(^o^)v... and Oneness

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SolSkye

Ambivalence...
What you described about there ONLY being love and bliss with awareness, while admittedly a nice way to look at it, was unfortunately still subjective...Sorry to break it to you...

(^o^)v... and Oneness

---

The words I chose, Love, Bliss, and compassion, are the best words to describe what the state is like. The meanings of the words used cannot be taken as absolute. Truly there are no words that can carry or convey that which is experienced in that state. Direct experience is the only true way for one to know what such is.

No need to apaologize, it is I who should apologize for trying to use words to convey meaning for something that is beyond words.

Why should such a state have love, hate or any other emotion. I thought the state is consciousness itself, like the soul, the observer. Isn't everything else like the material subconscious thing. What do you have left when you get rid of everything?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bonsay

Why should such a state have love, hate or any other emotion. I thought the state is consciousness itself, like the soul, the observer. Isn't everything else like the material subconscious thing. What do you have left when you get rid of everything?

---

Let me try again to convey what has been experienced.

Love and hate, compassion, cruelty, fear, anxiety, and such, are all what are labeled emotion. Each variation is also a label, labels that are associated with the illusion.Thats all they are, labels and all thoughts and ideas associated with the labels.

Rather than being different things, all are one thing. All are energy of Self, all are Self. What we see as the labels are just differences in how that one energy is resonating within. Truly, outside the illusion labels and all the ideas associated with them are meaningless.

In the state of Being I describe, I say compassion, Love and Bliss as that is the closest description in relation to the illusion to what the energy is resonating like within in that state. Be aware of your emotions as they burst forth without getting caught up in them. Take a moment and really feel them within. See what there is to see there.

In that state there are no thoughts of such labels or anything relating to them. No thoughts at all, as there is no consciousness to think a thought on. Awareness is all there is. Non discerning, non judgemental awareness. Try for a moment and grasp that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NonDualistic

In the state of Being I describe, I say compassion, Love and Bliss as that is the closest description in relation to the illusion to what the energy is resonating like within in that state.

---

So this state is likened to an emotion?

If not, invent a word, put it in the dictionary, create its definition, and then describe it to us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

So this state is likened to an emotion?

If not, invent a word, put it in the dictionary, create its definition, and then describe it to us.

---

Completely embracing orgasmic wholeness. Purity beyond verbal comprehension.

Interesting. So both you, cloudWalker and NonDualistic are always experiencing this? Is it hard to sustain, or is the feeling automatically maintained because of its greatness?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

Interesting. So both you, cloudWalker and NonDualistic are always experiencing this? Is it hard to sustain, or is the feeling automatically maintained because of its greatness?

---

I can no way near maintain this state consistently yet...

Only sometimes an experience of such through meditation.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

So this state is likened to an emotion?

If not, invent a word, put it in the dictionary, create its definition, and then describe it to us.

---

Really, what Cloudwalker said is about the closest comparrison to what its like feeling wise. There is no word for it. All one can do is describe what in physical existance it can be closest compared to, and then such a comparrison still falls short.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really
Interesting. So both you, cloudWalker and NonDualistic are always experiencing this? Is it hard to sustain, or is the feeling automatically maintained because of its greatness?

---

Again, as Cloudwalker stated, it has been thus the same here.

Knowledge of this State of Presence/Awareness, the actuality of the experience of being that State of Being has been seared into the consciousness and its memory.
From that moment, one realizes that one is that state and always has been and never will not be. However, maintaining such realization while in form is something that takes practice, and its not a practice of effort, its a practice of relaxiation and letting go, letting go of all the conditioning of physical existance and the distractions therin.
Through meditation it is possible for one to drop the illusion so completely that one in form can experience this State for brief moments. Its like the rays of the sun shining through momentary holes in the clouds.
Basically one has to let go of the conditioned idea of who they are, a construct that has been built or aquired since birth into form. Such is the "egocentric" self, the idea that you are this body, its personality, its posessions, its reputation, likes, dislikes, aspirations, passions, wants, desires, attachments, etc etc etc. This construct must fade and for all intents and purposes "die" to fully maintain such Self realization while the body yet lives.
For some, meditation means seclusion.: ie examples of Buddhist monks living in caves away from distraction. For the practitioner of Dzogchen, it means incorporating the State of Presence/Awareness into ones daily life. Life and all its activities becomes a constant unbroken state of meditation. Herein is where I am now, in this practice of letting go and incorporation.

It's a feeling that falls short of any words hence my whole, 'happiness' tattoo on the back of the neck thing. That's my easiest way of summing up that feeling to me.
Having complete inner balance. Something that is lost no matter how slightly when we choose to come back to the discourse of the duality. Making that feeling become something intangible, unable to be expressed to others, and always just out of ones' grasp.

You can always turn inward and return to that state whenever you like, though. And, that's the idea. ;)

Now it's time to feed your gillets with some Terrence McKenna...

"Culture denies experience...Cultures put in place...a paradigm. And, then what fits within the cultural paradigm is accentuated and stressed. And, what doesn't fit inside the cultural paradigm is denied, marginalized, and argued against. And, we live at the end of a thousand year binge on the philosophical position known as...Materialism, and it's many guises. And, the basic message of materialism is that the world is what it appears to be, a thing composed of matter, and pretty much confined to it's surface..." -Terrence McKenna

The World and its Double Pt.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14

~Enjoy! ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SolSkye

Now it's time to feed your gillets with some Terrence McKenna...

"Culture denies experience...Cultures put in place...a paradigm. And, then what fits within the cultural paradigm is accentuated and stressed. And, what doesn't fit inside the cultural paradigm is denied, marginalized, and argued against. And, we live at the end of a thousand year binge on the philosophical position known as...Materialism, and it's many guises. And, the basic message of materialism is that the world is what it appears to be, a thing composed of matter, and pretty much confined to it's surface..." -Terrence McKenna

The World and its Double Pt.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14

~Enjoy! ;)

---

Terence Mckenna is a genius.

SolSkye, I am really worried about these theories. Although the consequences of this belief may be beneficial to the individual, they are also very misleading and could have residual hostility towards other individuals.

The reason I say this can be encapsulated in your response to this question;
- What is the difference between what you have postulated here and solipsism?

Your response to this is very crucial to my thoughts on the matter..
~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SolSkye

Now it's time to feed your gillets with some Terrence McKenna...

"Culture denies experience...Cultures put in place...a paradigm. And, then what fits within the cultural paradigm is accentuated and stressed. And, what doesn't fit inside the cultural paradigm is denied, marginalized, and argued against. And, we live at the end of a thousand year binge on the philosophical position known as...Materialism, and it's many guises. And, the basic message of materialism is that the world is what it appears to be, a thing composed of matter, and pretty much confined to it's surface..." -Terrence McKenna

The World and its Double Pt.1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14

~Enjoy! ;)

---

I want to note that this is edging to debate on the nature of our existance. I want to know what it is you are proposing what a "good" life is; how we 'ought' to live. You showed that it is by realizing that there is no truth. Furthermore, you added that society functions as a machine to propogate materialism and beliefs in order to alienate irrelevant beliefs.

While I agree with this, I must argue that you are subject to doing the very samething. I worry that your argument is unfalsifiable in the sense that there is nothing I can do to show that your argument is incorrect. You would likely respond by saying that I am attempting to reach a truth that does not exist; a pragmatic approach to nonduality. However, I would say that it is your endeavour to show that truth does not exist that is the very problem in itself.

Believe me, seek my old posts on the fact that language is not transcendental to show how I hold truth can not be expressed by humans. The nature of things (what truth desires to be via human expression) can only be experienced. Your idea of this is evident, but we differ on our methods to attain this understanding.

I await your response before elaborating..

What do you think...?
~

I have to take care of some things this evening, not to mention it's 2AM here in Japan, but I will give it some thought and respond to this properly sometime tomorrow.

In the meantime, if you haven't already, you might want to check if I haven't already answered some of your questions in the 5 pages of the thread.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SolSkye

I have to take care of some things this evening, not to mention it's 2AM here in Japan, but I will give it some thought and respond to this properly sometime tomorrow.

In the meantime, if you haven't already, you might want to check if I haven't already already answered some of your questions in the 5 pages of the thread.

---

The previous posts do not touch on what I am aimed to discuss with you about this topic. You see, I agree that there is no truth, but for different reasons. I am not completely clear why you believe there is no truth, and I get the impression that that would be the very reason you would justify that there is no truth.

I would point out that there is no truth or self-awareness because we cannot express this to others and have even great difficulty expressing it to ourselves. The only way to be self-aware or to justify existance is to oneself and to simply exist. It is tautological.

However, finding solitude in chaos is something I advocate. I am simply curious how you are justifying your reasoning. Is it something dogmatic? (There is no truth or self-awareness because you cannot express it or demonstrate it) Or, what is the difference between what you are saying and solipsism?

We may be happier in enjoying chaos but I would not make the step to think that it is because I am the projector and creater of my external reality.
~

http://z.about.com/d/space/1/0/Y/Q/sun_tour.jpghttp://regmedia.co.uk/2006/12/08/blackhole_image.jpg
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...luzzi_2004.JPGhttp://geekus.org/RainAndFireIII.pnghttp://www1.istockphoto.com/file_thu...ire_flower.jpg
http://www.cartoonstock.com/newscart...s/aton490l.jpghttp://www.cartoonstock.com/newscart...s/tzun411l.jpg


Well, one thing I never try and refer to directly are the terms, 'good' and 'evil' because I find those terms to be vague extremes that don't actually exist, except on paper in people's minds. And, those terms are left up to each individual's imagination to determine which is which.

I do think that the terms, 'positive' and 'negative', are ideas we can relate to because it is what lines the very fabric of our universe and essence of our being. Life -- Death; Light -- Dark; Hot -- Cold... ad-infinitum

Since everything essentially came from the same singularity in space, it means you and all that surrounds you are an amalgamated randomized ever-changing interpretation of itself perceptually aware of the the countless randomized branches extending outward, at any given moment. Which when you think deeply about it, is actually a glance into the many faces of your true self. Some of those faces are easier to relate to than others, some are frightening and hard to accept, others are exciting. All of them are inescapably a part of you as the self-aware universe.

I always equate it to walking through a hall of mirrors of the mind, introspectively looking into the different aspects of the conscious self in the grand sense of the word.

I agree that these vague terms are problematic because of their transcendental affirmations which language and the individual is incapable of expressing.

However, you did not address my question; how is this different than solipsism? It still sounds very similar.
~

It's different in the sense that I also acknowledge the moment existing. I consider it an extension of you.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SolSkye

It's different in the sense that I also acknowledge the moment existing. I consider it an extension of you.

---

Wait - what is an extension of me?
~

The eternal moment and everything in it as it exists right now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SolSkye

The eternal moment and everything in it as it exists right now.

---

So, you recognizing the extension of myself is your perceptions of me?
~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SolSkye

Since everything essentially came from the same singularity in space, it means you and all that surrounds you are an amalgamated randomized ever-changing interpretation of itself perceptually aware of the the countless randomized branches extending outward, at any given moment. Which when you think deeply about it, is actually a glance into the many faces of your true self. Some of those faces are easier to relate to than others, some are frightening and hard to accept, others are exciting. All of them are inescapably a part of you as the self-aware universe.

---

I share your distaste for 'good' and 'bad', but I also extend this to 'positive' and 'negative' - they are just as contrived, really. But whatever.

I hope this isn't redundant, but the one leap I'm not following you on here is the assumption that the universe is self aware on a large scale. It's true that we are technically just a small knot of universe ourselves, and we are clearly experiencing this thing we call 'self-awareness'. However, I don't see how this destroys our individuality.

Just because two buildings are both made of the same bricks does not make the buildings 'as one', does it?

I recognize that while the many offshoots of the plant branch off in seemingly separate directions they all inevitably grow from the same seed or root, and are undoubtedly part of the same plant.

I try to think from the plant's perspective, not from the leaf of the plant. From there, I can try and admire all the aspects branching off of the plant instead of seeing myself as this separate entity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SolSkye

I recognize that while the many offshoots of the plant branch off in seemingly separate directions they all inevitably grow from the same seed or root, and are undoubtedly part of the same plant.

I try to think from the plant's perspective, not from the leaf of the plant. From there, I can try and admire all the aspects branching off of the plant instead of seeing myself as this separate entity.

---

Fair enough, but that doesn't really justifying making any blanket assumptions about the entire plant itself from your vantage point as a leaf. Try as we might, our view of the whole will forever be muddled by our existence as a part. Do you think it's impossible for the universe as a whole to lack awareness, for awareness to simply be a property of life forms which exist on a small scale?

We'll never get any evidence either way anyways, I don't think. But do acknowledge the possibility of an unconscious whole?

You are only a leaf, if you think you are a leaf.

The fact is, we are all the plant realizing itself and creating and settling for our borders and boundaries as we go. The plant borders at it's edge-- the universe, of which we are a part, has no known edge.

Why do you think yourself separate than the universe?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SolSkye

You are only a leaf, if you think you are a leaf.

The fact is, we are all the plant realizing itself and creating and settling for our borders and boundaries as we go. The plant borders at it's edge-- the universe, of which we are a part, has no known edge.

Why do you think yourself separate than the universe?

---

Perhaps a better analogy than a leaf from a plant would be a cell in some body. The cell is obviously a part of the body, just as we are a part of the universe - but I don't see how we are the universe. We are made up of the same stuff as the rest of the universe, but that doesn't seem to dissolve our physical limits, to me.

Are you using 'universe' and 'elementary particles' interchangeably? Your argument seems similar to the cell saying 'I am the bear that I am a part of', instead of 'I am made up of the same elementary particles as the rest of the bear that I am part of'. We aren't really the universe, we just part of it. If anything, we are quarks (or whatever smaller particles are as yet undiscovered).

How about a more concrete example, like a chair? The chair is not a part of my body. It is made up of the same stuff as I am, and we are both parts of the larger universe, but my self-awareness does not seem to extend to the chair in any way.

http://images.jupiterimages.com/comm...7/22739716.jpghttp://www.galactic.org/KozmikEye.gifhttp://www.faqs.org/health/images/uchr_01_img0052.jpg

Ego - The False Center
A quick overview of one small part of our universal body

Our role as a self-aware 'cell' to the universal 'body' is to perceive itself and observe the other parts of our body in balance. Therefore, using that same analogy in terms of ego, we really could be considered the id or hub for the entire universal body, just as the pineal gland is to your finite body. Now, which of those single cell clusters in your brain are the ones carrying around that idea of self, assuming such a thing were possible in only a few cells?

Ok, now imagine if all those cells in that part of your brain (lets call it earth) became independently self-aware at once and considered themselves separate and different from one another and from the body they once knew to be a part of, for whatever reason, and began fighting amongst each other rather than recognize their role and work together. Since they now consider themselves separate from and better than the other synapses and clusters, they blindly begin chopping down synapse after 'differing' synapse, devouring some to help build their own personal body politic grow bigger. Sounds to me like they've forgotten their function, and have become more like a cancer. That's the ego.

Do you think that the other cells without that self-awareness ability are unimportant or expendable parts to the body because they don't carry around that self-awareness? Just because our hair or fingernails don't have self-awareness doesn't make them less a part of us than our pineal gland. And just because the chair or table doesn't have self-awareness doesn't make it less a part of us, universally speaking.

Where does the self-awareness reside, and could it reside there on it's lonesome without all the other body parts there to perceptually feed it input into it's true nature, function, and origin?
http://www.ita.uni-heidelberg.de/~ms...gy/bigBang.jpg

http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/images/cu.gifhttp://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/images/cu.gifhttp://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/images/cu.gif
http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/images/cu.gifhttp://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/images/cu.gifhttp://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/images/cu.gif

http://i101.photobucket.com/albums/m...pes/Trippy.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SolSkye

I recognize that while the many offshoots of the plant branch off in seemingly separate directions they all inevitably grow from the same seed or root, and are undoubtedly part of the same plant.

---

Are you implying that I am the manifestation of your thoughts?

You're logic and rationale here is still very similar to solipsism. In fact, the more I read it, the more it seems that you are a solipsist.
~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SolSkye

Our role as a self-aware 'cell' to the universal 'body' is to perceive itself and observe the other parts of our body in balance.

---

Why should we have a role? Doesn't that imply a conscious entity behind our existence? And what do you mean by 'balance'?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SolSkye

Therefore, using that same analogy in terms of ego, we really could be considered the id or hub for the entire universal body, just as the pineal gland is to your finite body.

---

The pineal gland is the hub of our body? :shock:
Isn't that Descartes's theory about the soul communicating with the body via the pineal gland, and using 'animal spirits' to control our limbs? That's a terribly unfounded and ignorant theory, if that's what you're referring to :?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SolSkye

Ok, now imagine if all those cells in that part of your brain (lets call it earth) became independently self-aware at once and considered themselves separate and different from one another and from the body they once knew to be a part of, for whatever reason, and began fighting amongst each other rather than recognize their role and work together. Since they now consider themselves separate from and better than the other synapses and clusters, they blindly begin chopping down synapse after 'differing' synapse, devouring some to help build their own personal body politic grow bigger. Sounds to me like they've forgotten their function, and have become more like a cancer. That's the ego.

---

Here again, though, you assume that the whole is conscious. If we as The Whole were not conscious, our cells wouldn't have a function. The only reason we ascribe functions to them is because we want to stay alive - that is our purpose, and so that is the purpose we extend to them. If we weren't conscious, it wouldn't matter if they destroyed the rest of us. In the same way, if the universe is not a conscious entity, there is no reason for us to have a 'purpose', or for us to care what we do to the other parts of the universe.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SolSkye

Where does the self-awareness reside, and could it reside there on it's lonesome without all the other body parts there to perceptually feed it input into it's true nature, function, and origin?

---

Why assume that the input is fed into this 'self-awareness'? You seem to be thinking of it as a particular thing. I believe self-awareness is an emergent property of the human brain (and possibly body). As such, the 'other body parts', as well as the perceived inputs, ARE the self-awareness.

In combination with what I said in my last post; here's a question I would like to know the answer to:

- What could prove this theory of yours wrong?

Edit: This is directed to SolSkye.
~

Nothing logically could prove it wrong, because it isn't... It's a timeless realization. It's a matter of one being receptive to it, not.

The difference between solipsism and this view is, I don't think 'I' (in the separate subjective sense of the word) am the only thing that exists, I just fail to see a separation between 'myself', 'yourself', and others and see everything as one, seemingly separate, but implicitly connected organism.

The Spirit of the Age

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thegnome54

The pineal gland is the hub of our body? :shock:
Isn't that Descartes's theory about the soul communicating with the body via the pineal gland, and using 'animal spirits' to control our limbs? That's a terribly unfounded and ignorant theory, if that's what you're referring to :?

---

http://www.strayreality.com/Lanis_St...07/alta20b.jpg
Third Eye- Pineal Gland
The Pineal Gland and Melatonin
Antidepressant Facts: Pineal Gland, Serotonin & SSRI's side effects (Page 1.) (Page 2.) (most noteworthy being page 2)

I feel we are stepping back into a debate of prickles and goo, but if you want to get technical about it the pituitary gland is mostly known as the master gland. In the context of what I was talking about it still holds true. I believe the pineal gland in conjunction with the pituitary gland is much like the OS for your system, regulating sleep, your bio rhythm and mood through the release and breakdown of serotonin, your disposition and overall personality, reproduction, and pretty much all other ideas of self. Not to mention, the pineal gland being a photosensitive organ much like an eye. I don't understand how you could think it was unfounded to point out. The pineal gland was originally believed to be a "vestigial remnant" of a larger organ, so I'm pretty sure there are still plenty of mysteries surrounding the functionality of the different parts of the brain. Have you looked into Rick Strassman's study on the pineal gland and the DMT connection, yet? DMT: The Spirit molecule

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thegnome54

Perhaps a better analogy than a leaf from a plant would be a cell in some body. The cell is obviously a part of the body, just as we are a part of the universe - but I don't see how we are the universe. We are made up of the same stuff as the rest of the universe, but that doesn't seem to dissolve our physical limits, to me.

---

From a limited, conditioned point of view there appears to be a difference, but from the metaphysical point of view none actually exists. You are identifying yourself here as the physical aspects you perceive, and so in that sense 'you' are not identifiable with the 'universe'. But what would happen if you identify yourself not with these limited aspects, but with that which is perceiving these aspects? The center of your being is not subject to the constant changing of the sensory world. It is the motionless point around which all distinction and individuality revolves. This principle is the Infinite; it does not 'exist' in time or space, and therefore cannot be found there.

When one realizes that in Reality they are 'That', they simultaneously realize that no separation actually exists. Our rational mind wants to separate experience into categories, but this only comes after the experience. The experience in itself is Whole, but since our limited minds cannot comprehend it as a Whole we inevitably fragment It into parts. One cannot piece together the Whole from the parts because the Infinite is in Reality without parts (it is only relative to a limited being that parts appear to exist). This is why the way to 'understand' this (and why one cannot argue logically against it, as Solskye said) can never be to conceive of it analogically (subject vs. object), but only to experience it intuitively (subject and object are two complementary aspects of one principle).

You see the problem though, SolSkye? There is nothing that can show your theory to be correct so, analogously, there is also no reason to believe that you are correct.

You say there is no difference with solipsism because you fail to be able to separate our manifestations, but you just recently said that I am manifested from the "origin" - it seemed that you were saying that the origin was someones perception which perpetuates existance. However, if I am a branch of your perception - then you are a solipsist!

And this is where I think your theory relies; solipsists are unfalsifiable because there is no way for me to show you incorrect unless we were the share the same consciousness and existance. And, even then, your theory would still continue to be correct until we are all the same manifested being. But you'll make the step to say that we are the same manifested being, but in a diverse amount of variables. Hence, there is no reason to believe you, and no real justification for your beliefs.

If I am wrong somewhere, please help me out.
~

How would one not be manifested from the "origin"? Did you somehow not come from your mother's womb, and her from hers', or me from mine? As one perceives themselves within their finite shell with their finite senses it's real easy to get caught up in the output and think that the buck stops with you. Let's entertain the concepts, 'you' and 'I', for a quick second. What does that signify? Something outside your current definition of 'self', and what you can easily relate to as 'self'... so again, we come back to one's own willingness and perceptions. It's just a question of how open and ready you are to relate to everyone as yourself, or not?

It's impossible to prove me or anyone wrong on any stance of where 'they' and 'you' stand, because technically both parties are right and wrong in their own right, since it's all a matter of their own perception. That's all we ever deal in, and with. Once you attempt to falsify one's perceptions, deny them existing, or attempt to call them explainable variables you enter the realm of absurdity since you are using the very perceptions to assign labels into the nature of themselves. If you have to give it a label, you don't understand, and if you put it into words, the meaning is already lost.

It's like the one of the cells of a fly's eye denying and debating about how separate and different each of the sections of the perceiving eye is, and the other saying we are actually all connected to the fly...
http://www.cirrusimage.com/Flies/horse_fly_eye.jpg

If that's what the parts of the eye choose to look at, that's what they'll see. If they choose to understand and see they are connected to the fly, they'll see that...

Both and neither, are right or wrong, because there will be an equal number of parts to the eye denying and accepting that part to their own perception. I choose to see the fly.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SolSkye

How would one not be manifested from the "origin"?

---

This highly depends on what you are defining as "origin". You still seem to be implying that the "origin" is you or the perceiver. (Which is still you; being whoever is reading this)

Quote:

---

Did you somehow not come from your mother's womb, and her from hers', or me from mine? As one perceives themselves within their finite shell with their finite senses it's real easy to get caught up in the output and think that the buck stops with you. Let's entertain the concepts, 'you' and 'I', for a quick second. What does that signify? Something outside your current definition of 'self', and what you can easily relate to as 'self'... so again, we come back to one's own willingness and perceptions. It's just a question of how open and ready you are to relate to everyone as yourself, or not?

---

When speaking of the trascendental, we cannot utilize words to express their meanings because these words are restriced and concrete. They cannot properly express the meanings you are tyring to convery and are simply the result of the rules of play in which they are used. The "I" and "you" are simply relative terms to each individual and have no trascendental reference as propositions cannot properly express the transcendental.

Quote:

---

It's impossible to prove me or anyone wrong on any stance of where 'they' and 'you' stand, because technically both parties are right and wrong in their own right, since it's all a matter of their own perception. That's all we ever deal in, and with. Once you attempt to falsify one's perceptions, deny them existing, or attempt to call them explainable variables you enter the realm of absurdity since you are using the very perceptions to assign labels into the nature of themselves. If you have to give it a label, you don't understand, and if you put it into words, the meaning is already lost.

---

I don't see why you don't admit to being a solipsist then - this is exactly the defense of a solipsist.

Quote:

---

It's like the one of the cells of a fly's eye denying and debating about how separate and different each of the sections of the perceiving eye is, and the other saying we are actually all connected to the fly...

---

This does not seem to be following the same logic as you are using in other places. You say that the perceiver is integral to the universe they create, but then say we are all connected. You say that we only perceive individually perpetuated manifestations of other people, but that we are all separate entities? Can you help me clear this up?

Quote:

---

If that's what the parts of the eye choose to look at, that's what they'll see. If they choose to understand and see they are connected to the fly, they'll see that...

Both and neither, are right or wrong, because there will be an equal number of parts to the eye denying and accepting that part to their own perception. I choose to see the fly.

---

You seem to imply that the "fly", being a source that perpetuates all existance, is a separate entity but exclusive to the individual perceiver. Is this not contradictory? How can we all share the same perception if we are all perceiving different things? How can we all share the same mind if we all think different things? Perhaps you mean that we began as "the one" or that we all have an energy that eventually links together..?
~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

I don't see why you don't admit to being a solipsist then - this is exactly the defense of a solipsist.

---

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? :P


Conversely, why do you consider everything separate of you? Where exactly do you draw the line of self, and why? I fail to see a line... please show me one, if you know something I don't.

Other than fear, I can't see a reason how or why anyone would deny it being true. Everyone came from someone, who came from someone, who came from someone, who came from the earth as the same clean slates, which came from swirling gases, which came from a single point in space. You can look back through history like a mirror, and see your implicit connection clear as day. Why deny it still existing through to the eternal moment as it is right now? String theory doesn't, and there is more and more evidence and credence pushing towards an actual string theory holding true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

This does not seem to be following the same logic as you are using in other places. You say that the perceiver is integral to the universe they create, but then say we are all connected. You say that we only perceive individually perpetuated manifestations of other people, but that we are all separate entities? Can you help me clear this up?

You seem to imply that the "fly", being a source that perpetuates all existance, is a separate entity but exclusive to the individual perceiver. Is this not contradictory? How can we all share the same perception if we are all perceiving different things? How can we all share the same mind if we all think different things? Perhaps you mean that we began as "the one" or that we all have an energy that eventually links together..?
~

---

The perceiver is integral in the sense that, without the perceiver there would essentially be nothing there to perceive even though there is undeniably something there. We are the universe giving itself substance and meaning.

I don't think we share the same exact same perceptions, so much as, we are each a one-sided story being told from all different angles. Subjectively speaking, the story may seem very different, but it never actually changes. I have learned to look at and accept myself through the varying kaleidoscope eyes of everyone and everything.

I don't look at the fly as this separate mysterious entity, more of something we are all a part of, and perpetually forget. Even though, it pervades through every breath you take, every baby you make, and every cookie you bake. It is all-encompassing in each moment... for it is the moment and everything in it. There is no way to prove it wrong because in order to do so, you'd have to blatantly deny the simple truth of your 'self' in the eternal moment by purposefully and subjectively falling short of it.


Cosmic Giggle

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SolSkye

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

---

Are you saying that we should not label the universe "the universe" because it is so vast and in-comprehensive??

Quote:

---

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? :P

---

So, you're saying that I should not try and see the difference between what you are talking about compared to Solipsism because that would deem it a label?

We call the universe the unvierse and that does not take away from its majesty. Same with the human psyche, sex, love, etc.

What you are saying here does not seem to do your philosophy good justice.

Quote:

---

Conversely, why do you consider everything separate of you? Where exactly do you draw the line of self, and why? I fail to see a line... please show me one, if you know something I don't.

---

Are you asking me to necessarily point out where you and I separate? For the sake of brevity, our thoughts are simultaneously different. You rely on opposites so heavily but in recognizing opposites you must also note that if there no such thing as opposites then everything would be the exact same and there would not be a diverse universe as we would all collectively be one object. However, that is not true and the most you can argue here is that we all have a combining nature such as a self, soul, energy, etc. Although, manifestly, everything is different. Even if you believe in a universally binding variable, it manifests differently in each object.

Quote:

---

Other than fear, I can't see a reason how or why anyone would deny it being true.

---

So I should believe you because if I do not than I am fearing something..? I fail to understand what I would be fearing.

Quote:

---

Everyone came from someone, who came from someone, who came from someone, who came from the earth as the same clean slates, which came from swirling gases, which came from a single point in space. You can look back through history like a mirror, and see your implicit connection clear as day. Why deny it still existing through to the eternal moment as it is right now? String theory doesn't, and there is more and more evidence and credence pushing towards an actual string theory each day.

---

This is intriguing. In the first part here you make reference to the law of conservation of energy where energy is inevtiably passed on from generation, object, to object/generation. Then you make the leap to say that this never really happens and that we are always the exact same energy? As I said before, even if we are all binded by some universal energy, we are still all manifestively different. If it were otherwise, then you and I would share the same consciousness and would not be having this debate.

I get the feeling you may take the leap here and say that we are the same consciousness. If that is so, please explain how as I can cleary see that we do not by simply experiencing my consciousness. Manifestive consciousness and experiencing consciousness are two separate things; even in dualistic theory.

Quote:

---

The perceiver is integral in the sense that, without the perceiver there would essentially be nothing there to perceive even though there is undeniably something there. We are the universe giving itself meaning.

---

This is confusing. Maybe you can see my problem with your theory here. In the former part you imply that there is 1 perceiver but then say "we are the universe...".

Either way, it seems like you are fringing here at arguing "if a tree falls in a forest and no one is around to hear it, does it make a sound?"

Quote:

---

I don't think we share the same exact same perceptions, so much as, we are each a one-sided story being told from all different angles. Subjectively speaking, the story may seem very different, but it never actually changes. I have learned to look at and accept myself through the varying kaleidoscope eyes of everyone and everything.

---

Right, we all experience different things. Opposites do exist and varying experiences do exist. You're contradicting yourself now. If there were no opposites, then opposing experiences or opinions would not exist; but they do. Things do change, if things did not change, then our world would be collectively whole and linear.

Quote:

---

I don't look at the fly as this separate mysterious entity, more of something we are all a part of, and perpetually forget. Even though, it pervades through every breath you take, every baby you make, and every cookie you bake. It is all-encompassing in each moment... for it is the moment and everything in it. There is no way to prove it wrong because in order to do so, you'd have to blatantly deny the simple truth of the eternal moment by purposefully and subjectively falling short of it.

---

What is the eternal moment? What is it that pervades through all of us?

Arguing by analogy or arguing from experiences does not properly explain your theory nor give it justice. More importantly, it falls short to enlighten anyone else besides yourself.
~

In my defense, there are no words anyone can arguably say or type that can pass on experience or meaning to another person to give their argument justice. All one can do is, show a door to understanding the way they see it, and offer up analogies that paint a faint picture or image of that understanding... but unfortunately the understanding itself is always lost in translation. It is up to the listening party to cross that threshold of understanding for themselves.

So yes, attempting to give something labels, is just another way to write something off. Be it; love, truth, happiness, or self... or any other term we immediately brush off and take for granted. I just don't think people should take themselves for granted, and should ponder into their own nature. Answers start to reveal themselves at that point.

I don't think that my view is that unique. I think it is quite universal and rings true across the board.

About our differences, I said it before on page 2...

Quote:

---

The ability to discern difference doesn't make something different. It's only different, if you think it's different. Which, yes, is all a matter of perception. However, the fundamental reality of the situation is they are unequivocally indistinguishable from one another; the clock hand, the clock, and the table are all imagined or created of one thing- the mind. No matter how distinct you may see them in your mind as separate entities, ultimately they all boil down to one object, thought, or image in your mind. That is a perfect analogous breakdown of reality, as well.

---

Therefore, the fact you can sit there, and point out distinct differences between us, shows that you must also be able to step back enough to understand the relation between them that makes them different. Just like any dichotomy. ;)

I recently read some interesting articles in this month's New Scientist magazine, one of which was about dark matter and how simply observing it affects cosmic expansion, and the other was talking about the first potential findings of evidence into parallel universes by looking into the voids of space, so needless to say there are many things that go unanswered about the consistency and makeup of matter and energy. Therefore, sticking only to the simple rules of conservation of energy still shows lateral thinking. I try and use what I learn and observe to further build ground for my case. Unfortunately, I can't show you what I see and experience... words only get in the way and constrict how I actually see it.

"The tree in the forest...", and "The sound of one hand clapping..." thought processes are those of buddhist monks and the koans they use to reach enlightenment. Quite nice meditative tools. I also find trying to imagine a 5th prime color works, too.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SolSkye

In my defense, there are no words anyone can arguably say or type that can pass on experience or meaning to another person to give their argument justice.

---

We can, to a degree. Have you seen my threads on how language is not transcendental..?

Quote:

---

All one can do is, show a door to understanding the way they see it, and offer up analogies that paint a faint picture or image of that understanding... but unfortunately the understanding itself is always lost in translation. It is up to the listening party to cross the threshold of understanding themselves.

---

You see though, I think I do have an understanding of what you are saying and am questioning it. Can you see my point now? Your response is the same as "you have to believe it in order to see it". Although it may make common sense, I do feel I have an understanding and because of that, I am questioning it.

Quote:

---

So yes, attempting to give something labels, is just another way to write something off. Be it; love, truth, happiness, or self... or any other term we immediately brush off and take for granted. I just don't think people should take themselves for granted, and should ponder into their own nature. Answers start to reveal themselves at that point.

---

Oh on the contrary. We have a label for love and yet we continue to debate about its very definition. However, we still have a label for something that we all fundamentally understand. Does that take away from its meaning? Of course not!

Quote:

---

I don't think that my view is that unique. I think it is quite universal and rings true across the board.

About our differences, I said it before on page 2...

I recently read some interesting articles in this month's New Scientist magazine, one of which was about dark matter and how simply observing it affects cosmic expansion, and the other was talking about the first potential findings of evidence into parallel universes by looking into the voids of space, so needless to say there are many things that go unanswered about the consistency and makeup of matter and energy. Therefore, sticking only to the simple rules of conservation of energy still shows lateral thinking. I try and use what I learn and observe to further build ground for my case. Unfortunately, I can't show you what I see.

---

Interesting, I will have to read this.

Though it seems that you are using this to show how the perceiver propogates the universe. Which is where my questioning begins. I fundamentally agree with you, but it seemed to me that you took the leap to say something about how we originated and that seemed too similar to solipsism.

Quote:

---

"The tree in the forest...", and "The sound of one hand clapping..." thought processes are those of buddhist monks and the koans they use to reach enlightenment. Quite nice meditative tools. I also find trying to imagine a 5th prime color works, too.

---

Yes. What is the difference in meditating on these things and meditating about nonsense..?

ie. "Ohmmm.." compared to "shoogle-shaggglleee.."?
~

And another question Solskye - please don't miss it: What would you think if the Big Bang theory was proved wrong?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by really

And another question Solskye - please don't miss it: What would you think if the Big Bang theory was proved wrong?

---

What? It has already been fundamentally proven true. Do you mean the cause of it..?

What, specifically, are you referring to here as "proved wrong"..?
~

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

What? It has already been fundamentally proven true. Do you mean the cause of it..?

---

Obviously then, I mean that if it was replaced by a more supportive theory. I think that's pretty unlikely at this stage, but I am still posting a "What if" question. Yes, thus I mean the cause of the universe. Then, if the Big Bang theory was disproved and replaced by another theory, many ideas in this thread would be lost with many extremes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by O'nus

What, specifically, are you referring to here as "proved wrong"..?
~

---

Not specifically, hypothetically. As if another theory of greater support could explain it better.

Well, I just came back from a space flight and did acid this weekend, and was thinking about fractals alot this time, and saw that every observation and every system of order is just a fractal in an endless system of other fractals. Fractals being unique and endless interpretations of infinity.

Time starts and ends in on itself as one asymptotic spiraled fractal.
Language is just another finite fractal of communication.
Music is another fractal observing and playing with the fractal of mathematics and waves.
DNA is just another fractal of life and observation.

Pretty much all systems are endless manipulations of fractals reaching into asymptotic realization... eventually curling up into itself but having an endless amount of other curls to dive off of at any point in observation.

Fractals
http://fusionanomaly.net/fractals.jpg



...perhaps this makes no sense...but it made sense to me at the time.

Fractals are frigging awesome. If you magnify any piece of the image, it'll look just like the original image (same if you zoom out). It's kind of like my conception of the universe.

SolSkye I completely see where you're coming from. It makes sense to me.

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

http://farm1.static.flickr.com/187/4...1d109577fc.jpg
http://216.198.243.200/earthstar/image/Ea/Eye_Ra.jpg
http://www.crystalinks.com/allseeingeyelogo.jpg
http://static.flickr.com/56/150122417_35bdf7d7ce.jpg

http://www.jackhaas.info/digital-art...-generator.jpg
http://www.jackhaas.info/digital-art...neness-web.jpg

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?

Quote:

---

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

http://www.infinitecat.com/infinite/...eesedoodle.jpg

---

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

Quote:

---

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.

http://www.lsst.org/Science/images/Universe_fate.jpg
http://www.astronomy.com/asy/objects...ansion_485.jpg
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..

Quote:

---

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! :D

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?

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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. :)

Quote:

---

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!"?

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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"?

Quote:

---

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?

Quote:

---

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. :)

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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. :eek:

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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. :P

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.

~