Home › Edward Flores4 › Posts

Posts by Edward Flores4

437 posts shown.

Don't kill it! in Philosophy · Apr 29, 2008

Zachary Patel6 said:And why's that?

What's your issue with God? Maybe He just let you down?

Let’s say I kill someone—just as a hypothetical—and then you strip away my freedom because of what I did.

a) Does doing that actually bring the person I killed back to life?
b) Isn't taking someone's life and taking away their freedom essentially the exact same thing?
c) Does the end justify the means? Because if it does, maybe the killer had a noble goal in mind... so where does that leave us?
d) Isn't depriving someone of their liberty an act of judgment itself? And if it isn't, then how else would you define judgment?
e) If it is indeed judgment... who are you to sit in judgment of others? Don't you see that by doing this, you're just leveling the playing field with the killer?
f) Aren't you just acting out of fear for your own safety—locking up the killer under the guise of "justice"? Killers push their own version of "justice" too, so really, what's the difference?

If your logic holds water, you should have answers for all of these.

Zachary Patel6 said:And why's that?

What's your issue with God? Maybe He just let you down?

It’s pretty hard to be disappointed when you aren't expecting anything—and honestly, I go out of my way to avoid having expectations altogether. It makes being let down almost impossible, especially since you can't build expectations on something you don't even believe in. I mean, only a crazy person expects something from nothing, right?

I don't have a problem with anyone, let alone "anything." What I do have is a desire to talk only with people who are capable of backing up their claims with actual arguments—and I tend to steer clear of those who hide behind faith to avoid doing just that... I just avoid them.

Common misconceptions (and how to fix them) in Philosophy · Apr 28, 2008

Dennis Rogers6 said:
I can't say I agree with that sentiment. Honestly, it feels like only those who lack any real depth or understanding believe that the entire purpose of existence boils down to merely accumulating stuff and owning things.

I’d probably reach for a different descriptor to describe them... though, at the end of the day, isn't the core question exactly the same?
Are these "ignorant souls" just an inevitable part of the human condition? Or perhaps something more fundamental? 🤷

I mean, seriously—do you actually know anyone who was just born with all the answers?

Common misconceptions (and how to fix them) in Philosophy · Apr 28, 2008

goldenstag892 said:Louis, you’re basically saying that selfishness is just part of our nature, right? That we should just accept it.

I don't know, I can't say I agree with that. I feel like only people who don't really get life think that the whole point of existing is just hoarding stuff and owning things.

Even scientific studies—like, actual experiments—have shown that people are actually way happier when they pick up a little something for someone else, even if it's just some small thing, compared to blowing a ton of money on something expensive for themselves.

It’s a real shame that so many corporate giants haven't taken those findings to heart—or maybe they just choose to ignore them—because the way the world operates seems to back up Louis's point about selfishness being hardwired. Now, that doesn't mean selfishness is "good" or "productive," per se, but it really is this deep-seated, instinctive reflex rooted in self-preservation that shows up in how we act. Even parenting can be seen as a form of selfishness that could theoretically be neutralized in a different kind of society (which has happened throughout history), but when you're living in an ultra-competitive environment, being selfish becomes the only viable strategy for raising kids successfully.

What you're describing—that shift toward generosity—can really only happen once our collective perception expands, once we start seeing the deeper cause-and-effect ripples within our ecosystem, or perhaps through some kind of spontaneous, overwhelming moment of clarity.

Don't kill it! in Philosophy · Apr 28, 2008

Zachary Patel6 said:No—it's depriving them of liberty for the sake of public safety.

Of course God has nothing to do with evil; He simply knows how much darkness resides within us—even if it's equally distributed among everyone.
The kind of god you seem to think MIGHT exist certainly doesn't, nor could such a being truly be called God.

That's a very pragmatic way of looking at it, I suppose, but unfortunately, it's also fundamentally flawed.

Zachary Patel6 said:No—it's depriving them of liberty for the sake of public safety.

Of course God has nothing to do with evil; He simply knows how much darkness resides within us—even if it's equally distributed among everyone.
The kind of god you seem to think MIGHT exist certainly doesn't, nor could such a being truly be called God.

If it were even half as easy to argue that point as it would be to claim that philosophy could just vanish overnight, we wouldn't be having this conversation.

Don't kill it! in Philosophy · Apr 28, 2008

Zachary Patel6 said:😕You’re misinterpreting me—completely. I said only God knows what goes on in a killer's psyche or how much darkness is actually in there. It isn't our job to play judge (and by that, I don't mean killers shouldn't be thrown in prison), but as for the true depth of evil within them? Only God knows.

Wait, so throwing someone behind bars isn't "judging" them?

Zachary Patel6 said:😕You’re misinterpreting me—completely. I said only God knows what goes on in a killer's psyche or how much darkness is actually in there. It isn't our job to play judge (and by that, I don't mean killers shouldn't be thrown in prison), but as for the true depth of evil within them? Only God knows.

I don't think God has anything to do with it... honestly, there's an equal amount of "evil" in all of us. If things go sideways enough, any one of us could end up being a "killer." And if God even exists, He’s a much bigger killer than any human could ever be—which makes Him pretty hypocritical for "forbidding" others from doing exactly what He does. But hey, maybe nobody ever told Him that you don't raise kids with commandments, you raise them by setting an example. 🙄

Don't kill it! in Philosophy · Apr 28, 2008

Zachary Patel6 said:"Killing" is such a relative term. In my view, sometimes a sharp, cutting word does more damage than an actual murder. I say "sometimes," because nobody truly knows what's going on in a person's soul—except God.

So, are you saying His whole purpose is just to oversee "everything" from the sidelines without actually stepping in?

Don't kill it! in Philosophy · Apr 28, 2008

I’ve got another question brewing here... what does this actually mean?

Let there be light, and there was light!

Because if you translate it as "let there be light, and then there was light"—doesn't that imply the light is already gone?!

By the way—don't stress too much about trying to parse the Bible perfectly. Just like any other piece of technology, the Bible has undergone its own evolution and refinement over the years, and honestly, deception has been part of the game since day one. They basically sold astrology under the guise of a "holy book" while simultaneously burning anyone who actually practiced it. Plus, when you consider how "idolatry" is treated as being way more significant than "murder," it really tells you everything you need to know about the underlying function of biblical technology.

Can spirituality exist without God? in Spirituality · Apr 24, 2008

placidharbor7 explained this a long time ago—the whole impossibility of what you and Parsifal, along with all those other misguided believers in "consciousness," so desperately call the "here and now." Look, if it’s truly "here and now," then it isn't YOU; but if it is actually YOU, then it certainly isn't "here and now."

This idea of "here and now"—which you two, and so many others, unfortunately label as "consciousness"—is nothing more than a clumsy, amateur attempt at some New Age way of trying to grab God by the beard.

"Consciousness" and the observer simply never meet. All these stories about "consciousness," especially in your specific case, are nothing but spiritual beginnerism.

Seriously, just drop this half-baked, senile rhetoric already. It sounds like someone who’s spent a lifetime in ministry and is now adjusting to life in a mental health facility, handing out enlightenment advice to both the patients and the psychiatrists with the same level of authority.

Can spirituality exist without God? in Spirituality · Apr 24, 2008

mistybison said:But what if you only feel as though you are aware? 😉

Awareness exists solely through the interplay of opposites: consciousness versus unconsciousness, being versus non-being, having versus lacking. If you eliminate one side of this duality, the other loses its definition and collapses. "Existence" is essentially a game of double mirrors. Lose one side, and you lose everything. 🙂 Questions and answers can only exist within this "mirror world"—mere reflections constantly mirroring one another, simultaneously real and unreal. Concepts like "consciousness," "the mind," or "the self" also belong to this mirror world.

I have moved several posts from the old Parsifal thread (which was merged with the 'Academy') into these new topics:
Rejecting philosophy isn't an intellectual act; it's the first step toward true freedom.
Neither science, religion, nor philosophy can provide an answer to the mystery of CONSCIOUSNESS. How can that be?
The chat logs and private discussions remain over at the Academy. Please send me a DM if you believe any other posts should be moved. 🙂 If you would like me to, Parsifal, I can merge these two threads into one, though I believe they have a better chance of growing separately.

My bad!

See, I don't think unconsciousness is really the "opposite" of consciousness... it's more like a negation. You can only be unconscious if you actually have the capacity to be conscious in the first place, but for some reason, you aren't using it. Think about it like this: true opposites are things like life and death, black and white, or good and evil—not stuff like "alive and not alive," "black and not black," or "good and not good." So, in my book, consciousness and unconsciousness aren't actual opposites.

Everything else you mentioned was spot on, though.

Can spirituality exist without God? in Spirituality · Apr 24, 2008

briskraven28 said:Thanks for the reading list; I will certainly dive into it if my schedule permits.
The questions I posed were meant to highlight a glaring logical inconsistency in your rather elegant post regarding "free will" and the "absolute"—specifically your premise that "your thoughts are not your own." Because if an "absolute" exists, what does "freedom of choice" even mean? That was the crux of my inquiry. As for this example of the tower and the hill—do they both exist absolutely within their "transformation," or do you believe you can "separate" them to make them "relative"... implying that everything exists independently in its own being?

Uma, can I get an autograph?😍

The thing is, absolute and relative existence are parallel by their very nature—they don't cancel each other out. Think of it this way: relative existence is really just the Absolute taking on a specific form.

Can spirituality exist without God? in Spirituality · Apr 24, 2008

jademarlin26 said:If it makes you feel any better, I also felt completely paralyzed. In my attempt to untangle the relationship between freedom and choice, I ended up staring blankly at a shelf of laundry detergent, spiraling into a dozen different distractions. 🤔

Trapped by the sheer number of options. That was precisely my point.

It’s like that "paradox of being," as those folks over at the BBC might put it.😁

And honestly? If it would make things easier for me—not gonna happen.🤣

Can spirituality exist without God? in Spirituality · Apr 24, 2008

jademarlin26 said:You’ll know you are truly free when you stop encountering choices altogether; true freedom cannot coexist with even a single option. It always amuses me when people use phrases like "...well, you still have the freedom to choose...". It sounds incredibly shortsighted because, in my view, the two concepts are mutually exclusive. 🙂

Any action taken from the perspective of such a lack of freedom is mere self-delusion, providing nothing more than a false sense of satisfaction and success.

...and right then, he totally blindsided me 🙂

Now, I could try to justify myself here, but honestly, that would feel totally pathetic... so I won't. 😁

Instead, let's just move forward—ever forward—and I'll attempt to defend the thesis by leaning on that old adage, "nobody is the master of their own fate, and neither is their brother."

The real issue, though, is that we haven't actually defined what "choice" means. Is choice just a situation where you're at the grocery store and they only stock "Tide" and "Gain," or does choice also include the fact that instead of picking "Tide," I could have gone looking for "Ariel, Persil, or Seventh Generation"...?

Is choice the fact that I decided to respond to this post instead of just staying silent, or would it be more accurate to say: "if you actually had the ability to stay silent, you wouldn't have"?

At the end of the day... every morning you decide that you aren't going to end it all, but will instead choose to keep living—even though there isn't some concrete, logical necessity to do so... you simply *can*, so you choose it... or do you?

Maybe we should split "choice" into two categories: "social (physical) choices"—like products on a shelf, political puppets on the left and right, or choosing a guru versus a personal trainer—and "personal (conscious) choices"—like deciding that instead of admitting you're right, I'll make a desperate move and try to defend the concept of "free will."

Or is choice actually just a byproduct of memory and perception? Are we essentially stuck experiencing the illusion that we could have done things differently if we wanted to, or that we didn't *have* to do anything, when in reality we just did?

If this isn't confusing enough for you, I might just go hang myself from every flagpole between here and Washington, D.C.—after all, who am I to choose which flagpole to use? 😁

Can spirituality exist without God? in Spirituality · Apr 24, 2008

hiddenpuma75 said:"Quote:"

I’m with you on this one. I’d go so far as to say we’re actually standing on very similar ground, even if we’re using different metaphors to describe it.

I have a few questions:

How do you personally process—or even react to—those people who insist there’s always "something more"? You know the type: they claim that our understanding, whether it's mine, yours, or anyone else's, can never truly be the final destination. Even when things finally seem to settle, they argue we haven't reached the end. What's your take on that?
That’s exactly what I’ve been trying to drive home in my recent posts.

I’m just drifting through this world—or maybe I'm more like a leaf, tossed about by whatever breeze decides to pick up. 😁 I recently stumbled upon some profound insights from Buddha, along with some teachings from a cigarette vendor in Mumbai named Nisargadatta. Then there’s this woman, Bernadette, who claims she can see what lies beyond—insisting that they all exist in "that place" somewhere else.
They aren't exactly saying there’s anything wrong with you just because you decided to take a break while someone else keeps pushing through their practice.
But they can testify to it—to that actual realization, that direct experience of "THAT."
It’s pretty telling how they both use the exact same language and descriptions. It’s the exact same situation. Even though they’ve never actually met.
Some people would argue that this whole reality we’re living in—you, me, and everyone else who isn't "over there"—is nothing more than one big, beautiful illusion.
It’s something everyone eventually has to face, simply because the game is rigged from the start.

2) There are certain people, particularly here in the States, who literally... For sale. So, here’s my take on your "understanding"—that whole idea of "stopping." It feels a bit like you're selling this concept that everything is already fine and you can just... stop and exist. Like, you don't even need to bother with any specific techniques because you've essentially already arrived.

It all started with Alan Watts, but these days, it’s turned into a full-blown industry. You've got guys like Andrew Cohen, Gangaji, and Satyam Nadeen leading the charge—along with a whole host of others popping up like mushrooms after a heavy rain on the American spiritual marketplace.

Just to be clear, they aren't claiming to be one and the same. Special. They actually achieved more than just putting things on hold and trying to make sense of it all.

My three main witnesses—Buddha, Nisargadatta, and Aunt Bernadette—wouldn't hesitate to back me up on this one.
What if there’s actually something more to discover once we move past the stage of understanding and finally learn how to just stop?

So, you're suggesting we just ditch the techniques altogether? Alright, I hear you. I think I'm starting to see where you're coming from.
But how exactly are you going to respond to that latest riddle from the Sphinx?

Isn't choosing to stay out of politics actually a political stance in itself?
In other words...

Isn't non-doing actually its own kind of technique? I mean, just like any other method, choosing to step back and let things be is a deliberate form of action in itself. 🙂

Does anyone have any thoughts on this? I'd love to hear your take.

The experience of "That" really does exist—but unfortunately, there isn't a single thing you can do to go out and grab it. Well, actually, there is one way... you can "die." If you don't realize it right then and there, you'll eventually see that this whole existence was just one incredibly complex, perfectly choreographed game. So, I’m with you regarding your three witnesses, but I honestly feel like experiencing "That" isn't something you can just achieve through various "techniques"—except for one specific scenario, but I'll save that little secret for later...

hiddenpuma75 said:"Quote:"

I’m with you on this one. I’d go so far as to say we’re actually standing on very similar ground, even if we’re using different metaphors to describe it.

I have a few questions:

How do you personally process—or even react to—those people who insist there’s always "something more"? You know the type: they claim that our understanding, whether it's mine, yours, or anyone else's, can never truly be the final destination. Even when things finally seem to settle, they argue we haven't reached the end. What's your take on that?
That’s exactly what I’ve been trying to drive home in my recent posts.

I’m just drifting through this world—or maybe I'm more like a leaf, tossed about by whatever breeze decides to pick up. 😁 I recently stumbled upon some profound insights from Buddha, along with some teachings from a cigarette vendor in Mumbai named Nisargadatta. Then there’s this woman, Bernadette, who claims she can see what lies beyond—insisting that they all exist in "that place" somewhere else.
They aren't exactly saying there’s anything wrong with you just because you decided to take a break while someone else keeps pushing through their practice.
But they can testify to it—to that actual realization, that direct experience of "THAT."
It’s pretty telling how they both use the exact same language and descriptions. It’s the exact same situation. Even though they’ve never actually met.
Some people would argue that this whole reality we’re living in—you, me, and everyone else who isn't "over there"—is nothing more than one big, beautiful illusion.
It’s something everyone eventually has to face, simply because the game is rigged from the start.

2) There are certain people, particularly here in the States, who literally... For sale. So, here’s my take on your "understanding"—that whole idea of "stopping." It feels a bit like you're selling this concept that everything is already fine and you can just... stop and exist. Like, you don't even need to bother with any specific techniques because you've essentially already arrived.

It all started with Alan Watts, but these days, it’s turned into a full-blown industry. You've got guys like Andrew Cohen, Gangaji, and Satyam Nadeen leading the charge—along with a whole host of others popping up like mushrooms after a heavy rain on the American spiritual marketplace.

Just to be clear, they aren't claiming to be one and the same. Special. They actually achieved more than just putting things on hold and trying to make sense of it all.

My three main witnesses—Buddha, Nisargadatta, and Aunt Bernadette—wouldn't hesitate to back me up on this one.
What if there’s actually something more to discover once we move past the stage of understanding and finally learn how to just stop?

So, you're suggesting we just ditch the techniques altogether? Alright, I hear you. I think I'm starting to see where you're coming from.
But how exactly are you going to respond to that latest riddle from the Sphinx?

Isn't choosing to stay out of politics actually a political stance in itself?
In other words...

Isn't non-doing actually its own kind of technique? I mean, just like any other method, choosing to step back and let things be is a deliberate form of action in itself. 🙂

Does anyone have any thoughts on this? I'd love to hear your take.

I can't speak for everyone else, but if you look at what Alan Watts was actually getting at, he didn't claim that realization was some impossible myth. Quite the opposite. He argued time and again that the only real way to actually experience it is to stop chasing it—to basically give up the desire to reach it in the first place. Of course, being who he was, he’d always explain that paradox in such a vivid, colorful, and genuinely entertaining way—usually peppered with those clever little metaphors he was so good at. It makes you wonder, though... if the only "technique" is to have no technique at all, does that mean the lack of a method is actually the method itself?

hiddenpuma75 said:"Quote:"

I’m with you on this one. I’d go so far as to say we’re actually standing on very similar ground, even if we’re using different metaphors to describe it.

I have a few questions:

How do you personally process—or even react to—those people who insist there’s always "something more"? You know the type: they claim that our understanding, whether it's mine, yours, or anyone else's, can never truly be the final destination. Even when things finally seem to settle, they argue we haven't reached the end. What's your take on that?
That’s exactly what I’ve been trying to drive home in my recent posts.

I’m just drifting through this world—or maybe I'm more like a leaf, tossed about by whatever breeze decides to pick up. 😁 I recently stumbled upon some profound insights from Buddha, along with some teachings from a cigarette vendor in Mumbai named Nisargadatta. Then there’s this woman, Bernadette, who claims she can see what lies beyond—insisting that they all exist in "that place" somewhere else.
They aren't exactly saying there’s anything wrong with you just because you decided to take a break while someone else keeps pushing through their practice.
But they can testify to it—to that actual realization, that direct experience of "THAT."
It’s pretty telling how they both use the exact same language and descriptions. It’s the exact same situation. Even though they’ve never actually met.
Some people would argue that this whole reality we’re living in—you, me, and everyone else who isn't "over there"—is nothing more than one big, beautiful illusion.
It’s something everyone eventually has to face, simply because the game is rigged from the start.

2) There are certain people, particularly here in the States, who literally... For sale. So, here’s my take on your "understanding"—that whole idea of "stopping." It feels a bit like you're selling this concept that everything is already fine and you can just... stop and exist. Like, you don't even need to bother with any specific techniques because you've essentially already arrived.

It all started with Alan Watts, but these days, it’s turned into a full-blown industry. You've got guys like Andrew Cohen, Gangaji, and Satyam Nadeen leading the charge—along with a whole host of others popping up like mushrooms after a heavy rain on the American spiritual marketplace.

Just to be clear, they aren't claiming to be one and the same. Special. They actually achieved more than just putting things on hold and trying to make sense of it all.

My three main witnesses—Buddha, Nisargadatta, and Aunt Bernadette—wouldn't hesitate to back me up on this one.
What if there’s actually something more to discover once we move past the stage of understanding and finally learn how to just stop?

So, you're suggesting we just ditch the techniques altogether? Alright, I hear you. I think I'm starting to see where you're coming from.
But how exactly are you going to respond to that latest riddle from the Sphinx?

Isn't choosing to stay out of politics actually a political stance in itself?
In other words...

Isn't non-doing actually its own kind of technique? I mean, just like any other method, choosing to step back and let things be is a deliberate form of action in itself. 🙂

Does anyone have any thoughts on this? I'd love to hear your take.

Actually, it’s more like... well, it becomes a technique only when you consciously choose to do nothing despite having every reason to act. In that sense, it’s clearly a "strategic" move—just another layer of technique, if you will. But I should probably warn you that by looking at it this way, we’re essentially just playing word games and diluting the whole point. The real kicker is this: the number of hours you spend sitting in some specific posture, desperately trying to "stop" your thoughts, isn't going to help you experience "that." Sure, it might have plenty of other beneficial side effects—maybe it helps with focus or just calms the nerves—but it won't lead you directly to realization. Realization is ALWAYS spontaneous, totally unexpected, and more often than not, completely paradoxical. It's because truth—whatever that may be—is almost always found by stripping away its opposite.

Can spirituality exist without God? in Spirituality · Apr 24, 2008

briskraven28 said:On what basis do you conclude that thoughts do not vanish? Have you ever actually "been" "in" a "state" "without" "thoughts"—that is, "in" "nonexistence"?

What distinction (i.e., how do you separate them) exists between "choice, perception, self, mirrors, and surroundings"?

Can "you" make decisions based on "the decisions of everyone else" if "nothing exists except the absolute"?

What is the "level of magnification" relative to the "absolute"?

What is "free will" relative to the "absolute"?

What are your thoughts on "meaning"?

Take another look at the last few posts I’ve put up. I’ve already laid out the analogy regarding my conclusion—that consciousness itself, and by extension thought as a specific shape of conscious effort or activity, is the primary and fundamental "layer" of existence. Thoughts can only disappear if the very capacity for thinking disappears, which means consciousness and memory have to go too. But if consciousness and memory were to vanish, existence itself would cease to be, wouldn't it?

I’d really suggest looking back through some posts by a member named "ljubo." He’s gone into this specific point several times with incredibly thorough arguments—honestly, he does a much better job of explaining it than I ever could. From what I gather, he’s quite well-versed in both spirituality and philosophy. So, if you’re looking for a truly deep dive into that analogy... ljubo has mapped it out beautifully on multiple occasions. Personally, I just don't have the energy to keep rehashing it, especially since it's been covered so many times already. If you can't find them, or if you're just not feeling up to the hunt, let me know and I'll just copy/paste the whole thing for you.

briskraven28 said:On what basis do you conclude that thoughts do not vanish? Have you ever actually "been" "in" a "state" "without" "thoughts"—that is, "in" "nonexistence"?

What distinction (i.e., how do you separate them) exists between "choice, perception, self, mirrors, and surroundings"?

Can "you" make decisions based on "the decisions of everyone else" if "nothing exists except the absolute"?

What is the "level of magnification" relative to the "absolute"?

What is "free will" relative to the "absolute"?

What are your thoughts on "meaning"?

You could pick five random phrases from my previous posts and ask me how I "separate" them, even though I've already provided a complete "analogy" explaining my conclusions. Just ask me specifically what isn't making sense... please don't throw these five-variable questions at me when they aren't even points of contention within the context of how I've already explained the distinctions. Ask direct, concrete questions. This one doesn't really hold any water.

briskraven28 said:On what basis do you conclude that thoughts do not vanish? Have you ever actually "been" "in" a "state" "without" "thoughts"—that is, "in" "nonexistence"?

What distinction (i.e., how do you separate them) exists between "choice, perception, self, mirrors, and surroundings"?

Can "you" make decisions based on "the decisions of everyone else" if "nothing exists except the absolute"?

What is the "level of magnification" relative to the "absolute"?

What is "free will" relative to the "absolute"?

What are your thoughts on "meaning"?

You exist, but only relatively. Think about a stone tower sitting on a hill. We’d say the tower exists, right? But the tower is made of stone, and those stones were already part of that hill. If something has simply changed its form, we can't really call that the creation of something entirely new... can we? Transformation and creation are fundamentally different concepts. In this scenario, the stones exist absolutely, while the tower exists only relatively.

Again, I'm telling you... read ljubo's posts. He argues this point in great detail, and it feels redundant to keep repeating it in every single thread where someone struggles to grasp the idea of parallel absolute and relative existence.

briskraven28 said:On what basis do you conclude that thoughts do not vanish? Have you ever actually "been" "in" a "state" "without" "thoughts"—that is, "in" "nonexistence"?

What distinction (i.e., how do you separate them) exists between "choice, perception, self, mirrors, and surroundings"?

Can "you" make decisions based on "the decisions of everyone else" if "nothing exists except the absolute"?

What is the "level of magnification" relative to the "absolute"?

What is "free will" relative to the "absolute"?

What are your thoughts on "meaning"?

You’d have to ask the Absolute itself. I was talking about how we perceive relative existence.

briskraven28 said:On what basis do you conclude that thoughts do not vanish? Have you ever actually "been" "in" a "state" "without" "thoughts"—that is, "in" "nonexistence"?

What distinction (i.e., how do you separate them) exists between "choice, perception, self, mirrors, and surroundings"?

Can "you" make decisions based on "the decisions of everyone else" if "nothing exists except the absolute"?

What is the "level of magnification" relative to the "absolute"?

What is "free will" relative to the "absolute"?

What are your thoughts on "meaning"?

Ask the Absolute. My point was about the concept of "free will" within relative existence.

briskraven28 said:On what basis do you conclude that thoughts do not vanish? Have you ever actually "been" "in" a "state" "without" "thoughts"—that is, "in" "nonexistence"?

What distinction (i.e., how do you separate them) exists between "choice, perception, self, mirrors, and surroundings"?

Can "you" make decisions based on "the decisions of everyone else" if "nothing exists except the absolute"?

What is the "level of magnification" relative to the "absolute"?

What is "free will" relative to the "absolute"?

What are your thoughts on "meaning"?

I don't really hold opinions on arbitrary words—mostly because the very fact that words are just arbitrary symbols makes having an opinion on what we call "meaning" feel pretty pointless. If something is arbitrary, there isn't some deep, underlying reason for it... it just is. We could just as easily call it "flibberty-gibbets" and nothing would change.🤷

Once again, you're throwing out these hollow questions... if you want to know something, just ask something specific. To be honest, your questions feel a bit like those kids who think they have this clever little trick up their sleeve, trying to steer you toward a specific answer just so they can say, "Aha! I got you!"

Can spirituality exist without God? in Spirituality · Apr 24, 2008

I honestly think we need to take a moment to really unpack this. It’s one of those things that seems simple on the surface, but once you start peeling back the layers—kind of like peeling an onion, if you will—you realize there’s a whole lot more going on under the hood than most people give it credit for. It’s easy to just skim over the details, but if we want to actually get somewhere meaningful here, we have to be willing to sit with the complexity for a bit. I’ve always felt that the best way to approach these kinds of discussions isn't by rushing to a conclusion, but by being deliberate—taking that slow, steady walk through the logic rather than sprinting toward a finish line that might not even be where we intended to go. Anyway, just my two cents on why I think we should dig a little deeper. kaže:
I see exactly where you're coming from, but I’m struggling to wrap my head around this idea of things happening "against my will." If we follow that logic, the "I" isn't even really mine to begin with—it’s just a collection of thoughts. And honestly, I can't even tell if those thoughts are actually mine or if they're just passing through, which leaves me in a bit of a loop: I can't even determine if I possess free will in the first place, let alone how to exert it.

Look at it this way—whether we actually possess free will or not is almost secondary to the fact that we live the experience of having it. Even if it turns out to be some grand cosmic illusion, there’s no escaping the reality of the choices we face every single day. We're stuck with the decisions in front of us, regardless of how the universe is wired.

Imagine you’re sitting in a diner, right? The server comes over, pen poised over the notepad, and asks what you want to eat. And instead of just picking something, you decide to get philosophical—you tell them, "I'm not actually going to order anything specific... I'm a strict determinist, you see. I'm just going to sit here and wait to see what happens!" It sounds clever in your head, sure... but the reality is that you could have ordered the burger. You could have picked the salad. By choosing *not* to order, you've essentially made a choice. In a situation where you had the power to pick whatever you wanted, deciding to stay silent is, in itself, an exercise of free will. It's funny how that works out.

When you really dig into what freedom actually is—especially if you look at how it’s defined by its own opposite, non-freedom—and you factor in the fact that we simply can't escape the lived experience of making choices, I don't find that whole "free will problem" to be such a massive headache. It just doesn't sit right with me as much as it does for others. 😁 Whether it’s there or not... honestly, I feel like I’m stuck with it, and there isn't a damn thing I can do about it.

I honestly can't wrap my head around how some people approach this—it’s like watching someone try to assemble an IKEA bookshelf without the instructions and then getting frustrated when they have three leftover screws. There's a specific kind of mental friction that happens when you're trying to reconcile deep, philosophical truths with the messy, loud reality of everyday life in America. It’s not just about understanding a concept intellectually; it’s about how that concept actually sits in your gut when you're stuck in traffic on the I-95 or dealing with a stressful Monday morning at work. It reminds me of what we were discussing earlier—that tension between the ego's need for control and the actual flow of things. You can read all the books you want, spend hours meditating, or dive deep into the teachings of someone like Nisargadatta, but if you haven't integrated that stillness into your "real" world, it’s almost like practicing yoga in a vacuum. It’s one thing to be calm in a quiet room, but it’s an entirely different beast to maintain that center when everything around you is pulling you in ten different directions. I think we often overcomplicate the process by looking for some grand, sweeping epiphany, when really, it's more about these tiny, incremental shifts in perspective—sort of like how a pilot makes constant, minute adjustments to keep a plane steady through turbulence rather than making one giant turn. We have to learn to navigate those micro-adjustments in our own consciousness. It’s a slow burn, not a lightning strike. kaže:
And besides, you still haven't actually given me an answer regarding that whole "self-awareness" question.

I’m having a hard time wrapping my head around the whole idea that self-awareness is somehow questionable. To me, it feels completely undeniable—you just know that you know, right? You’re acutely aware of the fact that you’re conscious. The only thing I find debatable is whether this consciousness actually belongs to "you" personally, or if there's just one singular field of awareness that manifests itself through various fragments—sort of like how individual leaves on a tree all belong to the same organism, even though they seem separate. Every single one of these new fragments starts out as a "blank slate," and then becomes consciously aware as an isolated unit. Honestly, it’s probably a massive shock to the system—think about how intense birth must be for a newborn—which, combined with how we're raised later on, basically makes us forget our true origin story entirely. 🙂 The whole literacy thing—and that constant tug-of-war between the left and right brain—just adds another layer of complication to the mess. It’s like most people are living in a state of perpetual hypnosis. They’re stuck in this unending loop of fear, constantly terrified of death, never quite grasping the simple reality that being alive right now is actually proof that they’ve already died before. It's a cycle—they don't see that life itself is the guarantee. 🙂

Kenneth Peterson5 said:Look, I get what you're trying to say—really, I do—but I don't see how anything can even be "against my will" when this whole concept of "me" isn't even mine to begin with? It's just a collection of thoughts, and honestly, I don't even know if those thoughts are actually *mine* or just some random brain noise, so how am I supposed to know if I have free will or not?
Plus, you totally dodged my question about "self-awareness."

Look, the reason I keep hitting you with these questions is because what you're claiming is actually pretty interesting—really, it is—but it's equally "interesting" how you won't give me a straight answer and instead just dance around the point. So, hey, if I'm getting under your skin—which, by the way, maybe that nerve isn't even yours, but mine—just say so and we can drop the whole "me" vs "you" thing. This topic is one of those things where you can talk forever and never really get anywhere, and honestly, I don't even know how to finish this sentence without making it a total slog to read, which might lead to a misunderstanding, but whatever, since misunderstanding usually comes before understanding anyway... and since the whole goal is to eventually understand, I guess I'm just overcomplicating everything just to see if I can provoke you into being simple for once. 😁

Don't go throwing imperatives at me, come on, you know how this works. 😁

If that wasn't specific enough for you, just keep the questions coming... I'll eventually stumble upon a metaphor that actually makes sense.

Can spirituality exist without God? in Spirituality · Apr 23, 2008

rustymaker5 said:But does that mean there are actually situations out there where we have absolutely zero choice?

If we’re operating under the idea that "failing to see an option" and "having no options" are essentially two sides of the same coin—technically speaking—then yeah, those situations definitely exist. Personally, I haven't found myself backed into a corner like that (at least none that I can recall right now), but the world is a massive place... I'd imagine that every once in a while, somewhere out there, choices just vanish entirely.

Can spirituality exist without God? in Spirituality · Apr 23, 2008

briskraven28 said:I was actually planning to respond to that—though I assumed Edward Flores4 was avoiding me for some reason.

When "thoughts" cease, does the "ground" remain? And does the "I" still exist once thought disappears?
If your thoughts "aren't yours," is it even possible to have "choices" or make "decisions"?
Who "within yourself" identifies with the Absolute? Or rather, who is doing the identifying?

Once the thoughts drop away, the "self" drops away too... but here's the thing—thoughts don't just disappear; they are the primary layer, while we are essentially secondary.

Choice isn't born from a "self"; it's a byproduct of perception. And perception? It's really just a mirror reflecting the environment back at us.

I don't identify anyone "inside myself" with the absolute. Honestly, nothing exists outside of the absolute. The "self" only exists in a relative sense—relative to "you" or "them." Think of it like this: individual leaves on a single branch, individual branches on a tree, individual trees in a vast forest, and individual forests spread across the entire planet...

And it just goes on and on... everything depends on the level of "magnification" you're using. It’s like looking at a rug. Up close, a dense, tightly woven rug looks solid and uniform, but if you look through a magnifying glass, you see a web of individual fibers that seem to vanish into one another, only to resurface as part of the whole surface again. If you focus on just one fiber, it feels solid and distinct—until you pop it under a microscope and discover the dance of molecules and complex structures. At one level, you're an individual; at another, you're just a tiny part of a much larger pattern. Instead of some "individual" at the "top" making all the calls, every single "level" makes its own local decisions for its own specific scale. This is what I call spiral dynamics, and it creates this persistent illusion of the "ego"—this little biological sack full of bones and tissue that blindly believes it's somehow separate from the rest of existence.

Can spirituality exist without God? in Spirituality · Apr 23, 2008

Kenneth Peterson5 said:Look, I don't really have some massive, definitive stance on this whole "problematic mess"; right now, I'm just asking questions—you know, following that old school rule where curiosity doesn't kill the cat.😲😁

I’d love for you to clear a few things up for me:
If the thoughts passing through my head aren't actually *mine*—if they belong to some other "me"—then the whole concept of "self-awareness" starts looking pretty shaky, doesn't it?
Plus, it feels totally backwards to claim we have free will within a "self" that isn't even truly ours to begin with.

I always think of oak leaves when I try to wrap my head around "free will"—it’s probably the best metaphor out there. Every single leaf is its own thing, making its own way, but at the root level, everything is interconnected. We’re all part of the same tree, so one leaf's movement ripples through the rest because we're all drawing from that same shared foundation.

The whole free will debate is really just one big paradox. You can only really define free will by contrasting it against things that happen *against* your will—you know, those moments where stuff just happens to you without your input. In a weird way, if we didn't have those external forces acting upon us, the concept of free will wouldn't even exist. And honestly? If every single little thing happened strictly because we willed it... well, that sounds like a nightmare. You'd be stuck making a million tiny decisions every second and would probably lose your mind within thirty minutes.

At its core, free will is just the capacity to choose when an actual choice is available. If there's no option, there's no free will. Think about simpler organisms—they basically operate on a basic "action-reaction" loop. But humans? Because we have memory and complex perception, we get to operate on a much more advanced loop: "action—perception—choice—reaction."

“The spoken word was the first technology by which man was able to let go of his environment in order to grasp it in a new way. There is absolutely no inevitability as long as there is a willingness to contemplate what is happening."
Marshall McLuhan

It couldn't be put any more simply than that.

Can spirituality exist without God? in Spirituality · Apr 23, 2008

briskraven28 said:So, does that mean you never walk away from a debate?

"Never" is a pretty heavy word to throw around—there are plenty of reasons why someone might decide to bail on a conversation, though it’s definitely not my typical style. I'm sure there will be exceptions to the rule, of course.

Can spirituality exist without God? in Spirituality · Apr 23, 2008

Kenneth Peterson5 said:shamantrixx, what's the actual difference, in your eyes, between how you're framing this and how I am?

On the surface, I don't really see a distinction... but when we're diving into topics like this, you kind of have to use an analogy to back up your conclusion—otherwise, you might actually be able to spot where those differences lie.