The philosopher who claims he doesn't exist

Jonathan Brooks8 said:No, of course—it wasn’t your age I was questioning, but rather how you chose to respond. My apologies if my approach felt a bit too blunt... But you answered with "you"—as a mode of existence. And that isn't some timeless, spaceless abstraction (to borrow your critique from earlier), but rather something with a very distinct beginning and end in both time and space. You could have responded differently—which would have been just as truthful and sincere, I suppose—but it would have pointed toward an entirely different level of consciousness...

When you look at the word "that one"—it’s more than just a pointer—it implies a specific gendered identity anchored within a particular slice of time and space. So, when you say, "that one who I am," you aren't just talking; you're actually bridging several different layers of consciousness and existence...

When a being becomes conscious, meaning it's aware of its own existence, it says "I exist" or "I am the one who I am." When that's said, it can't imagine anything besides its own body, which is just the objectification of that essential SELF. Yet, that essential SELF was never created and will never vanish. Space and time only exist when there is consciousness. By being born, the self gains the ability to change states while the SELF remains constant; then we have the conscious, unconscious, subconscious, and superconscious, with all their shifts and combinations. In the "state of death" or the "state before birth," none of that exists, but there must always be some state because there is always the ONE who wasn't born, the ONE who lives, and the ONE who has died. This "ONE" is always universal, regardless of our individual existence. It isn't based on consciousness, or the brain, or anything like that—it's the SPIRIT, and that represents the intuitive SELF that people just aren't aware of. When they say "I," they think of the body or the personality, but the true SELF is the essence. The "I" we usually think about is the one we ourselves "introduced" into the framework of time and space. It's a derivative, merged with the forms of perception and reason. A human being is a derived being from the spirit, a being of change.

If you don't have an age—if it’s "absolutely" true that you lack one—then why on earth did you tell me you were 23? And if you're truly immutable, why get so defensive when I ask?
Besides, why are you giving me these vague, sweeping answers instead of just being direct?

Jonathan Brooks8 said:If you don't have an age—if it’s "absolutely" true that you lack one—then why on earth did you tell me you were 23? And if you're truly immutable, why get so defensive when I ask?
Besides, why are you giving me these vague, sweeping answers instead of just being direct?

Look, as a being derived from spirit, I am human—which means I change. But my core essence stays the same. Of course, that essence isn't something you can analyze while I'm still alive and possessing this level of consciousness.

The "me" that exists is unchanging.
The "me" known as amberpilot is just a projection of that being, constantly shifting.

First, there is the metaphysical "me"—spiritual, beyond reach.
Second, there is the symbolic "me"—the derivative, secondary version.

Alright, my intention was simply to suggest that you encompass all of it. That you might be twenty-nine years old—ever-shifting—yet simultaneously possess the age of humanity itself, fluctuating just as much as mankind does; that you hold the age of the Earth, being as dynamic as the planet, or even as ancient as the universe, yet remaining just as volatile... and so on, implying that you are, at once, both timeless and immutable.

But, of course, all these layers comprising your "self" are merely an imprint—the result of your experience, the very experience of change. Tell me, do you actually grasp the relationship between that imprint and the essential, unchanging "I"?

Jonathan Brooks8 said:Alright, my intention was simply to suggest that you encompass all of it. That you might be twenty-nine years old—ever-shifting—yet simultaneously possess the age of humanity itself, fluctuating just as much as mankind does; that you hold the age of the Earth, being as dynamic as the planet, or even as ancient as the universe, yet remaining just as volatile... and so on, implying that you are, at once, both timeless and immutable.

But, of course, all these layers comprising your "self" are merely an imprint—the result of your experience, the very experience of change. Tell me, do you actually grasp the relationship between that imprint and the essential, unchanging "I"?

I don't have experience of my essential SELF, nor is such a thing even possible. If it could be empirically experienced and easily understood by everyone, I wouldn't be mentioning this "I" here in at least 50 different posts. When people say "I," they immediately think of their physical body, which creates this illusion that matter is the foundation of spirituality. No... I'm not talking about the "I" that others imagine; I'm sticking to intuition while everyone else translates it symbolically. It's simple: as long as we're alive, we're conditioned to take everything we encounter, imagine, or feel and turn it into an object, just to make the unimaginable feel more accessible. Just like you can't truly visualize love, you can't visualize your own inner essence. You try to picture love as a woman or a heart, but true love is something completely different—something with a transcendent source beyond our ability to know, something that never actually appears before us. As my colleague would say, love isn't from this world, and he's absolutely right because we deal with the objectification of love, whereas actual love is something entirely different, something incomprehensible to us.

So, amberpilot is a derived category. The spirit is what produces that projection; it changes and eventually dies, but the spirit remains a spirit regardless of whether something essential, dualistic, or something else entirely awaits us afterward... you never know.

The "I" you find in self-awareness (being aware of yourself) is merely the intuition of the true "I" I'm talking about, and they aren't the same thing. That self-aware "I" is derived from the true "I," and you reach the true "I" through intuition........ it's hard to explain these things with words because you inevitably have to rely on auxiliary terms pulled from past experience............. and saying I'm 29 would be an understatement. 😁

amberpilot said:I don't have experience of my essential SELF, nor is such a thing even possible. If it could be empirically experienced and easily understood by everyone, I wouldn't be mentioning this "I" here in at least 50 different posts. When people say "I," they immediately think of their physical body, which creates this illusion that matter is the foundation of spirituality. No... I'm not talking about the "I" that others imagine; I'm sticking to intuition while everyone else translates it symbolically. It's simple: as long as we're alive, we're conditioned to take everything we encounter, imagine, or feel and turn it into an object, just to make the unimaginable feel more accessible. Just like you can't truly visualize love, you can't visualize your own inner essence. You try to picture love as a woman or a heart, but true love is something completely different—something with a transcendent source beyond our ability to know, something that never actually appears before us. As my colleague would say, love isn't from this world, and he's absolutely right because we deal with the objectification of love, whereas actual love is something entirely different, something incomprehensible to us.

So, amberpilot is a derived category. The spirit is what produces that projection; it changes and eventually dies, but the spirit remains a spirit regardless of whether something essential, dualistic, or something else entirely awaits us afterward... you never know.

The "I" you find in self-awareness (being aware of yourself) is merely the intuition of the true "I" I'm talking about, and they aren't the same thing. That self-aware "I" is derived from the true "I," and you reach the true "I" through intuition........ it's hard to explain these things with words because you inevitably have to rely on auxiliary terms pulled from past experience............. and saying I'm 29 would be an understatement. 😁

Actually, looking at it now, those specific numbers don't seem particularly vital to me—not when you consider the entire spectrum of other possible ages...😁

Peter Unger’s "I think, therefore I am" from Perception and Identity

Scott Doyle16 said:Peter Unger’s "I think, therefore I am" from Perception and Identity

Well, you've gone and ruined it. Before you brought this up, I was actually pretty convinced that guy didn't even exist. 😁