At last, I’ve finally found something that you cannot change. Well then, just call this “reality” and discard everything we’ve said so far.
But if you are creating these maps at every given moment, isn’t the maps changing depending on you? :D
Yeah, call me when someone learns to affect the map.
Can we call it your perception of the map? Because that’s all there really is, that’s why it’s a map. Nothing exists which isn’t in your present moment, except as maps.
Check this out:
If you’re interested in giving meditation a try again, try the headspace website/app.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVzTnS_IONU
Meditation for beginners on youtube from actualized is a great start, he also has a guided meditation track and more: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fXmG1x1ih1U
In my opinion by not approaching the meditation for benefit’s sake will you paradoxically benefit the most, but I don’t know, it’s a speculation. Alan Watts have some great videos about this and similar on youtube :)
No problem, wish you the best :)
Peace!
So… you can change laws of physics?
I don’t know, I’m not a physicist. Based on my limited knowledge is that you cannot change the map. Imagine everything in the world being a map called X, and it has a revision number. Just because you know the maps are X and have a revision number doesn’t undermine the content of the maps themselves. Your life experience might become different, however.
Who is then?
For there to be control, there has to first be someone or something which can be controlled and a controller. All is illusionary. You can create maps, but they will still be maps in relation to the arational.
And why do you call it my Matrix, since I cannot affect it in any way?
I’m telling you in a practical sense since you have to have the experience yourself. You believe you are a creature, being of some kind. You can affect your matrix, by realizing it is a matrix, it’s kind of paradoxical.
1) law of physics change for people who have different maps
I’m saying laws of physics is a map. Our reality is arational and exists without reasoning or understanding. Sure your map may be more accurate than other maps, but it’s never the territory as it’s a human projection.
2) you’re just calling reality “maps that can’t change”, in which case there’s no point in having this conversation.
No, of course, you can change maps. But it’ll always be a map. “It’s a map and it’ll never be the territory, as it is a map”
If that’s true, why isn’t Liza sucking my c@{k right now? It’s my Matrix, after all.
If you silence all thoughts, you experience arational reality. But the moment a thought appears, you have a map, if you didn’t silence all thoughts, you created a map. If you believe you are experiencing arational reality, you are not, as you created a map of the memory of experiencing arational reality. Within a snap of a finger you may become present, and each snap of the day you are either aware or not.
Thoughts and all senses are the matrix of which you base everything, thus you are the Architect, the projector. But it’s not normal to be God.
Just because it is your matrix, doesn’t mean that you are in control. Because the thought of you is a part of your matrix, so is the illusion of control, and everything else.
So how do you call those parts of the maps that agree on each other and are independent from individual minds?
Maps that agree on each other, will always be maps. L a n g u a g e i s a m a p. Some maps may have higher expected value in relation to maps which are perceived to have low. But they never break the illusion of being a map itself.
Maps can’t ever be independent of maps, that’s the illusion of one map being the territory. Some might say it is more likely that something is the territory, but I disagree since you can become aware what is the territory in the present moment and it is arational.
One is responsibility: if you do “place” people on a path, you assume some. You do, don’t you?
As far as I see it, rationality isn’t bound to the matrix (virtual reality) which we create. In this present moment, you can be aware of all thoughts and question them, even the existence of yourself. These are all concepts we have pre-determined to be the territory without realizing it in the first place. All are maps.
The responsibility is of the individual to do the work and it’s always the case, as that’s where the maps are coming from, they are a projection.
That is my assumption, and everything simply is. You are your environment, you do not exist independent and are able to filter out things which you do not like, that’s assuming control and holding onto the belief of the existence of you and all other beliefs.
The other one is knowing what you are talking about. You are a pseudonymous handle on the ’net. Is there a particular reason to believe you have a clue?
I simply give my argument which can be refuted, argued or discussed for and against. After the discussion, you update your map regardless what you choose to do or not. I do, however, speculate that we are self-organizing and if it as if everything is already on the path, by looking back.
Whether you want to use the binary enlightened/unenlightened distinction is up to you. I’m not a fan of binary classifications.
I like to use enlightened/unenlightened, because if you are enlightened you know. But you also might be tricking yourself that you are enlightened, thus cannot become something which you think you are. I think I have had a glimpse and some of it transitioned over. But then there is the ego, the monkey mind. Very close but still far away.
I’m just saying that you are making assumptions about me that are not true. You likely don’t have preexisting categories for the state in which I happen to be when it comes to my relationship with the self.
That’s true, it’s only assumptions. I assume you have ego because I have it, because I think a lot have it and here as well. It seems to be such a norm. But I don’t know how to spot it outside of my own assumptions from experience. Maybe some MRI scans have seen this ‘self’-hallucination.
In a discussion, isn’t it possible when someone is making an assumption about you, that you reply it is not true? Is it the case you do not have an ego?
Basically you are inspired by an idea and try to preach it to people who think differently and categorize other people on a path where they are less evolved than you are.
I might be dogmatic in thinking I am more aware of certain things, but that’s just the order of whatever. It’s a paradigm of the ego definitely, transcending it would be interesting.
It can also be the case it doesn’t seem like many can even phantom to understand what I am communicating, or even are able to see everything from their perspective.
In a Buddhist view, that would likely be seen as strong attachment to ego. From the way you are writting it appears like you don’t have self awareness of that fact.
You have to see it from the perspective of ego, an ego lies. By spotting which text is from the ego and thus removing it, I have tricked myself in the process and strengthened my ego. There isn’t a bad part of “I” “you” or anyone else, which is the ego, the whole thing is it. But I do become more aware of my unawareness, and tricking myself in the process. This is hard.
The people I know who had samadi experiences are not like that but are generally more self aware of drives like that. They also generally aren’t attached to binary classfication as much. It also seems that you don’t have awareness of how that issue affects you.
We go to those that are enlightened, they do not come to us. Nothing matters, everything is nothing. Binary classifications is such a non-issue. :)
implementing the concepts through work. And maybe through spreeding the gospel. That’s however not how it works.
I know.
It’s a typical approach for New Agey people and those often don’t get very deep because they treat some knowledge as dogma with prevents letting go of concepts.
That seems like a strawman.
That said, I’m not seeking the end that the Buddhist seek. I’m also not saying that anybody should.
Everything I have said is secular, but I think that you see the world through your own eyes.
Maybe it was because of the word “enlightened/unenlightened/enlightenment”?
People go on paths regardless what you do, the better you are at convincing the likelihood they venture on a specific path is higher, I think. I don’t see why it’s a question of qualification, that would be more from the paradigm of the ego I think.
You seem to be strongly attached to whether or not something exist and the binary classification of something either existing or not.
No, I think it’s unlikely, however.
That suggests that I have a single map of “I”. That doesn’t happen to be the case. There might have been a time where my level of introspection was structured in a way where it’s true but that’s not the case today.
You aren’t enlightened are you? It’s unlikely that you aren’t in the trap of the ego otherwise.
You argument resolves around you yourself having a wrong map that you haven’t given up. As a practical matter it’s questionable whether you are even at the moment on a course that leads in a direction of giving it up, but that would be a debate about spiritual guidance.
Of course, I am becoming more aware of it. I do think that I am on the course of giving it up, one can give it up at any moment, but it might just happen randomly.
My argument also revolves around placing you and others on the path.
I know that it contradicts, the point is that you can see for yourself is this the case. By realizing all the concepts of “you” are maps, and that there is no need for thinking (creating new maps) to reveal this truth, you can merge with arational reality. But it can only be done by direct experience. This is an empirical investigation.
What I mean is that you don’t exist, but arational reality does and “you” is the entirety of reality. The body which you see is a part of arational reality. But you can only experience this yourself. Talking of it is the same thing, it is thinking (when what I am saying is that we should not think) because it’s just creating maps upon maps. If you just look around, imagine this is arational reality. Then you name an object, that’s a thought, which is a map. When thoughts are quiet and you are not labeling and you have given up the notion of “you” existing, you have merged.
Of course it requires you to do the work, and it’s probably going to take a long time to give up the map of “you”, I haven’t done it myself.
Regardless how accurate or inaccurate a map is, it is still a map. But some maps are more or less accurate over other maps. That’s fine. That’s human projections.
I argue that the territory is arational, which means any representation in relation to the territory is all the same.
The argument is that everything is a map including anything written here, in quotes or not. It’s the written language and so forth, however, many layers deep the maps go.
By excluding all maps in direct experience you uncover the territory. Which is you. Which is arational. But only by direct experience.
What makes you think I am arguing for the dualist view? Is it the overall impression or some certain statements?
I do write “subjective experience” and so forth to ease in and try and make this a bit more understandable. :D
I don’t fully understand what you mean.
Gravity is a human projection.
But why would being aware something is a human projection change the projection itself?
Dude, we already know that rationality is inside the mind. Reality (“the thing that doesn’t go away when you stop believing it”) doesn’t have to play by any rules.
I get this moment you’re having, it’s obvious when we talk about a brand new science, that is neuroscience. Even if there are a lot of work still left. In relation to you, that is still a map, that you have a mind. Okay, now I might be playing on definitions if “mind” doesn’t mean arational reality to you.
But it does. It’s a fact that our puny brains are Turing complete, and that reality is very regular in such a way to be computable. Heck, in such a way to be linear, at a fundamental level!dea
That’s your opinion. That’s your map.
This must be a sort of joke from the Gods or the Architects of the Matrix.
A cosmic joke :D Really, though, you are the God, the Architect of the Matrix.
I think the one who is not accepting that reality can be described by rationality is you.
I fully agree. I do argue that reality cannot be described by anything, as it is arational. But of course you have to see for yourself.
I think that the territory might be the experience of enlightenment. I wonder what gjm, yudkowsky, Lumifer, reguru or some other rationalist would say after becoming enlightened.
The thought that you know everything interesting about the world, is a thought.
In fact, by thinking that you know, you won’t ever be able to know. Because you think you already have what you seek, thus you cannot gain what you seek. In the same manner, you won’t buy an expensive object when you already have said object.
I also feel like my sense of wonder diminished. As I write this, I am a little unhappy, and in a period of depression, but I had similar feelings, if less intense, even before this period.
I was wondering whether you have any advice on how to restore this; or even better, how to “forget” as much rationality and transhumanism as possible (if not actually forgetting, then at least “to think and feel as I did before I read the Sequences”)?
The unknown is vastly beyond, in fact, if you are familiar with “map not being the territory”, you are the territory.
The territory precedes time, space and everything that is a map. Which are, you. The concept of who you think is you is a map.
By practicing daily meditation, you will be able to increase your awareness where the separation of thoughts and awareness occurs, by becoming less oblivious to the maps, all that’s left is the territory.
The ego loves to stay in control, and it’s a very tricky thing, I can highly recommend starting meditation, every single day, have a timer or follow a guided meditation practice. No matter how you feel or what the day is, get it done, even if you have to do it every time before you go to sleep.
Of course, this isn’t medical advice, for emergencies, you should visit a doctor :)
Take care, god bless.
I will say it more explicitly: I do not believe that continuing to discuss this stuff with you is a good use of my time. I gravely doubt it’s a good use of the time of anyone else here, but of course it’s not for me to say what others should do.
How is this relevant to the discussion? You’re talking about different things now.
I think your attempts at “awareness” have regrettably left you hopelessly confused and self-deluded. I do not think you have anything useful to teach me, and I do not think you are open-minded enough to learn anything from me.
I can make the same argument, but I don’t see how it leads to anywhere. Why not try and argue for your point? Whenever I make an argument you seem to ignore it completely, use your own definition or strawman. When I try and figure out what you’re thinking, you’re saying I am speculating what you’re thinking two times now, so what? Then tell me what you are thinking.
Maybe you just realize you can’t defend your point and have to rationalize the dissonance.
Have a good day,:D
Because you won’t say it straight up how you are thinking, I have to guess, so that discussion can continue.
“You’ve just got yourself into a state where you are oblivious to the maps involved.” What does this mean? So everything is a map?
You have not yet succeeded in communicating any new insights to me; we may of course disagree about why that is.
I’ve numerous times said communication is inherently flawed due to the nature of the concept. It’s a subjective experience, which you can find out for yourself.
I know how it’s like to think that you’re smarter than anyone else, that’s fine, I get that feeling too.
Was the youtube link video? Do you have the video of the TED talk? Audio is boring, but I can wait.