Philosophical Speculations

EduardoCandeias wrote: ↑Wed Jun 30, 2021 5:46 pm

AshvinP wrote: ↑Wed Jun 30, 2021 2:22 am We are not "ripples" on the waves of an ocean of Will, or "whirlpools", or anything similar to that imagery. We are not each "enclosed" spaces of consciousness, but there is only one space we exist in and we are all different perspectives within that one space and the Center of that one space is also an ideating perspective.

I got lost...

Can you explain this to me in a simpler way? What do you mean by "ocean of Will"? And the Center is also an ideating perspective?

Thank You, AshvinP.

I am not sure. Basically, I am saying that we should not imagine our current ego-perspective as an isolated whirlpool in a lake or ocean, or anything similar to that imagery. We should not think there was a point in time where MAL "dissociated" into separate whirlpools and we happen to be one of those whirlpools, and when we die or at some later time our whirlpool will disappear as our self-perspective dissolves back into MAL. That is a major drawback of BK's MAL imagery. Rather, the situation is more like that layered sphere in the image I posted. Even that is a very simple visual analogy and should not be taken too far, but I think it is much more helpful than BK's "flat" MAL imagery. Each perspective is within one unified space of MAL and interwoven with each other in complex and manifold ways, right this moment. We can gain better resolution on those interconnections via higher modes of perception-cognition, but for our purposes here I think you just should remember there is one unified space of Consciousness we are all participating in at every moment.

So consciousness is a space, not a substance?

EduardoCandeias wrote: ↑Fri Jul 02, 2021 3:22 pm So consciousness is a space, not a substance?

I use "space" (and temporal language) because it cannot be avoided for the most part, but I am not talking about "physical" space. Consciousness is not physical in essence - it is all mental ideating activity. The basic point here is that your ideating activity and my ideating activity is shared - it is fundamentally the same activity. Once we start to internalize that reality, many questions around "what happens to our 'alters' when we die" will simply disappear. There is no reason to assume ideating activity, which we all participate in, could ever disappear from existence.

AshvinP wrote: ↑Fri Jul 02, 2021 4:11 pm

EduardoCandeias wrote: ↑Fri Jul 02, 2021 3:22 pm So consciousness is a space, not a substance?

I use "space" (and temporal language) because it cannot be avoided for the most part, but I am not talking about "physical" space. Consciousness is not physical in essence - it is all mental ideating activity. The basic point here is that your ideating activity and my ideating activity is shared - it is fundamentally the same activity. Once we start to internalize that reality, many questions around "what happens to our 'alters' when we die" will simply disappear. There is no reason to assume ideating activity, which we all participate in, could ever disappear from existence.

I confess that I am not reaching the state of "intuitive" with this theme. Thanks for the answers, maybe there is an explanation so simple that it makes me feel ashamed of not having understood, but I'm just not getting there..

EduardoCandeias wrote: ↑Sat Jul 03, 2021 10:02 pm I confess that I am not reaching the state of "intuitive" with this theme. Thanks for the answers, maybe there is an explanation so simple that it makes me feel ashamed of not having understood, but I'm just not getting there..

Alan Watts is a good way into intuiting nondualism. I recommend The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are as a good place to start. You can find an audiobook copy here, and you can find his lectures all over YouTube.

EduardoCandeias wrote: ↑Sat Jul 03, 2021 10:02 pm

AshvinP wrote: ↑Fri Jul 02, 2021 4:11 pm

EduardoCandeias wrote: ↑Fri Jul 02, 2021 3:22 pm So consciousness is a space, not a substance?

I use "space" (and temporal language) because it cannot be avoided for the most part, but I am not talking about "physical" space. Consciousness is not physical in essence - it is all mental ideating activity. The basic point here is that your ideating activity and my ideating activity is shared - it is fundamentally the same activity. Once we start to internalize that reality, many questions around "what happens to our 'alters' when we die" will simply disappear. There is no reason to assume ideating activity, which we all participate in, could ever disappear from existence.

I confess that I am not reaching the state of "intuitive" with this theme. Thanks for the answers, maybe there is an explanation so simple that it makes me feel ashamed of not having understood, but I'm just not getting there..

Let me put it this way - when you think of the meaning of "the Sun", what comes to mind? I suspect it is very similar to the meaning that comes to my mind. I cannot access your internal perspective right now to confirm that, but I do know we can talk about "the Sun" and have a deep level of shared understanding centered around its meaning which then allows for productive discussion. What is the explanation for that? Flat MAL theorist says we come to that by some unknown mechanism of personal evolution which allows your mind to work in the same way as mine and independently come to meaning of "the Sun". Deep MAL (my view) says the entire Cosmos is meaning and it is shared by all. When you think of "the Sun" and I think of "the Sun" we are literally existing in and perceiving the same 'space' of meaning.

Physicalists looking for brains generating consciousness is a futile activity.
It’s not even the right question.
The question they would have to answer is why do I personally EXIST in the first place?
Why do I seem to be an individual, a specific consciousness staring out of the eyeballs of a specific body?
What was different about the universe for this to occur?
Billions of bodies showed up before this one.
Billions showed up after this one.
None of them seem to have created my existence.
Why would this specific body/brain create my existence?
All bodies are made of the same elements.
All brains have the same basic anatomy.
If all brains are basically the same and are creating consciousness then there should only be ONE consciousness staring out of every set of eyeballs simultaneously.
A hopelessly superimposed existence from every possible viewpoint at once.
I’m sure that physicalists would claim that no, no, brains are so complex they are all different.
Ok, so what would have to be recreated in another brain for me to exist staring out of another set of eyeballs?
If an exact copy of my body was created in Antarctica would I find myself to exist there freezing my ass off while also sitting in the comfort my living room?
According to the physicalists that would have to be true or their argument collapses into incoherence.
Then in a random universe where things statistically reoccur why couldn’t I exist again or even in more than one place at a time?
Why do the physicalists so adamantly insist that an individualized consciousness could only exist once?
How could pure awareness even be individualized?
Physicalists demand measurements but with consciousness there is nothing to measure.
There is electricity in the brain they say. We’ll measure that.
Is electricity consciousness?
If so then once I again I should exist everywhere at once since electricity cannot be individualized.
My blender runs off of electricity.
Is it a genius?

By attempting to understand personal existence all physicalist arguments devolve into nonsense.

Idealism, which states that consciousness is primary answers the question of why I seem to exist as an individual.
One consciousness exists looking out of every set of eyeballs and in the process the illusion of individuality is created.

I AM YOU, YOU ARE ME, WE ARE ONE

DandelionSoul wrote: ↑Sun Jul 04, 2021 5:22 am Alan Watts is a good way into intuiting nondualism. I recommend The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are as a good place to start. You can find an audiobook copy here, and you can find his lectures all over YouTube.

Hello from Portugal again. I have read Allan Watts, The Book: On The Taboo... and Bernardo's Brief Peeks Beyond.

There's a point I can't understand and I'll thank someone for their patience to explain it to me, as if I were 10 years old, "The body is in consciousness, not counscioness in the body.". The whirlpool metaphor was not of great use either, is there any other way to explain this matter?

Please and Thank You for your kindness.

EduardoCandeias wrote: ↑Fri Aug 06, 2021 12:36 am

DandelionSoul wrote: ↑Sun Jul 04, 2021 5:22 am Alan Watts is a good way into intuiting nondualism. I recommend The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are as a good place to start. You can find an audiobook copy here, and you can find his lectures all over YouTube.

Hello from Portugal again. I have read Allan Watts, The Book: On The Taboo... and Bernardo's Brief Peeks Beyond.

There's a point I can't understand and I'll thank someone for their patience to explain it to me, as if I were 10 years old, "The body is in consciousness, not counscioness in the body.". The whirlpool metaphor was not of great use either, is there any other way to explain this matter?

Please and Thank You for your kindness.

A 10 year old will never understand this metaphysical concept

Let's shoot for 21 year old - everything you see is an image created by you to represent as aspect of Consciousness (MAL, the Spirit, the One, etc.). It is sort of as if you are wearing a virtual reality headset, which creates the images so that you can meaningfully engage in the 'game'. That includes your "body" - it is an image like other images. The most important thing to understand is that an "image", like that of your body, is no less real than anyone or anything else you perceive. That easily gets lost in the translation from materialism to idealism.

I admire the quality of the commentary here.

The original post raises the fundamental question of who (or what) one is. Another way to approach that question, in addition to the commentary above, is to remove what one is not, and what remains is what one is.

Each of us have many identity elements. My identity is a very privileged white USA male. My family, wife, friends, dog, community, beliefs, thoughts, history, health, wealth, home, property, politics, religion, nation, competencies, faults, failures, friends, enemies, digital expressions, and education are all part my identity library. The full list is exhaustively longer. I also identify with my body, contained in a membrane of skin.

When all those "me" identities are dissolved, what remains is what I am. By the way, when Moses asked God's name, he answered "I AM." (Exodus 3:14)