Posts by briskraven28

Edward Flores4 said: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.

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"?

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

Edward Flores4 said:How am I supposed to define something that doesn't even exist? I’m talking about something I can't physically feel, something that gives me zero indicators, and absolutely no way to measure or point to it using any kind of data or sensory input. It's like trying to describe a color that hasn't been invented yet—how do you even begin to put words to a complete void?

Responding to someone using their full legal name feels like such a strange social convention to me—it’s basically just a tool we use to make sure we're actually talking to the right person, keeps things organized, and makes life easier for whoever is crunching the numbers for various statistics. But honestly? I don't feel like my name is some core part of my identity. It’s more like a handshake or a basic social contract that I follow just to keep things running smoothly in public.

To be honest, my thoughts aren't even really mine... I used to think I was the one in control of them, but once you start looking closely at how things actually work, you realize that thought is the primary driver—experience is just secondary. Thought is absolute, whereas experience is always relative. And the same logic applies to the "person" having those experiences; the "I" only exists in a relative sense. I didn't just pop into existence out of thin air. Whatever it is that I actually originated from—whatever that source might be—that thing is absolute. It’s the primary reality. You could call it the Mother of all Mothers, the Absolute, the Void, or whatever terminology fits your perspective, but that's where the truth lies.

To be honest, before I really sat with this, I used to walk around thinking that "I" was the one doing all the thinking—you know, that little voice in my head driving the bus. But lately, I’ve come to realize that whole idea is just a total illusion. It’s like looking at a reflection in a moving stream and thinking you can grab it; you just can't identify the thought process with the "self"... or maybe, if we're being precise, it works the other way around. But here's the kicker: if you actually manage to identify that "I" with the Absolute, the entire mechanism of identification just... stops. It’s done. Think of it like a metamorphosis—this process where the subject (the "me" I thought I knew) transforms into a transcendental object (the Absolute). Once you truly see that you *are* the Absolute, the need to identify disappears because there's no longer a separate identity left to cling to. Everything else just falls away, leaving nothing behind but a pure point of awareness.

Awareness itself isn't really some kind of "output" from my hard work—it’s not something I manufacture. Think about it this way: if someone walks into a room carrying an umbrella, provided you actually see the person and the umbrella, can you really *not* be aware of that umbrella entering the space? Of course you can't. So, being aware of my surroundings isn't some product of intense mental effort or focused labor; it’s just a spontaneous interpretation of the shifts happening around me. In a sense, I’m more like a mirror—just a surface reflecting all the changes occurring in my environment. Now, the way we interpret those changes can be totally arbitrary, but it’s also unavoidable. It becomes arbitrary because we tend to mess it up through various levels of denial or by projecting our own stuff onto what we see. But if we could reach that ideal state—where we aren't denying what's right in front of us and aren't projecting our subconscious onto reality—then awareness of the environment is simply a consequence of change itself. And that’s something I can't even claim as "me."

Self-awareness—or what people usually call "self-awareness"—is really just a matter of resonance. Think of consciousness like a mirror; the second that consciousness catches its own reflection, you get self-awareness. It’s not some achievement you can grind for or a product of sheer willpower, either. It's more like pure interference between your consciousness and your perception—kind of like two waves overlapping to create a new pattern. And even then, once you peel back the layers, there isn't really anything left for me to actually latch onto or identify with.

After doing a little bit of "internal inspection," I’ve come to a pretty significant conclusion—consciousness isn't some sort of phenomenon that just pops up "inside" me. Instead, it feels more like the very foundation that I was built upon; it's likely the underlying substrate for my entire existence. Think of it this way: the different segments of our existence basically vary based on how much mobility they have and their general capacity to interact with everything around them. That capacity for interaction includes the ability to make choices when multiple options are on the table—which is exactly what we call free will. In my view, the choices and decisions I make are really the only things I can truly claim as "mine," and because of that, I take full responsibility for them. So, if I’m digging deep to explore the concept of "self," those specific choices are really the only candidates qualified to hold the title of the "ego." But hey, I’m not just floating in a vacuum here... there's a whole world surrounding me, too... and we definitely need to keep that in the equation, right?

So, if consciousness is really the "foundation" of everything, then I’m sharing that same "foundation" with the entirety of existence. Let’s try a metaphor—think of a massive Oak tree, and let's say my "self" is just a single leaf on that tree. Every individual leaf has its own "sense" of being itself and the ability to make decisions on a "local" level. A leaf can turn toward the sunlight, and if enough other leaves decide to turn toward the light, the whole branch will eventually pivot toward the sun. As a leaf, I might think I’m "individual" (in *individuum*—meaning divided) and experience myself as a persona (from *personae*—a voice through a mask, a dramatic mask), making choices that might actually end up hurting the tree as a whole. But since I share this "foundation" with every other leaf, every branch, the bark, the trunk, and the roots... well, that would be pretty foolish. When I make a decision, I have to account for all the other segments of my immediate surroundings that I share a foundation with. This means the "entity" I’m actually deciding in whose interest is much, much larger than this little "leaf" I physically feel like—my very survival is tied directly to the rest of the tree. In other words, I am just one of many "conscious points" on the same tree. If an "I" exists, that "I" IS the entire tree.

Just like my liver doesn't perceive my eyeball, even though they both belong to one single human organism—similarly, I am just one conscious part of the absolute consciousness that serves as the "foundation" of its own existence.

There we go... instead of giving you a dry definition of the ego, I’ve laid out a full analogy to explain why I hold the views I mentioned earlier. If you spot any flaws in that logic, I’d honestly love to sit down and hash it out with you. But as you can see, my perspective doesn't allow me to define what you call the "ego" or claim to possess it—because when I look at "myself," I simply don't find it there.

1) The concept of verifying a claim is fundamentally different from the concept of "becoming" something other than what you already are. I said that the idea of "becoming" something is an ego trip. Verifying someone else's claim (no matter what that claim is) is something else entirely. "Becoming" something and "discovering" what you truly are aren't even similar, let alone comparable concepts.

2) What kind of technique can you use to gradually wake up? How long does it take you to wake up after sleeping? One moment you're asleep, and the next you're awake... probably still groggy, sure, but awake nonetheless. There are no techniques for waking up. You just have to want to wake up RIGHT NOW. No preparation, no specific methods, and no waiting around for a period of change. Transformation is instantaneous; it doesn't require time.

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?

Edward Flores4 said:Prove what? It’s really just that I can't stand people who bail on a conversation the second things start getting messy—you know, when the ship starts taking on water. Look, I disagree with plenty of people on here, but I don't react to them the way I'm reacting to you. Just something to think about. 😉

Thanks for the advice... and hey, I actually think you might be right, but the thing is, I don't particularly care about my "credibility." I'm not out here trying to build a following or win over a congregation, and I'm certainly not expecting anyone to give me their trust upfront. To be honest, even I don't agree with everything I write half the time... so why would I expect anyone else to?

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