Is there a State of Everlasting Bliss?

[Dalek Prime]

I have read all this stuff many times before. I was keen on Buddhism in my 20s. "No thing ever happened" in a very broad sense but my objection was always practical. That is, if you don't treat things as though they are really happening, then the reality of being a biological being hits home fast. A creature of matter lives in the world of matter, and is subject to that world 24/7, no matter what cool things might be swirling around in said creature's head.

I too have read what you are saying so many times before.

You are right of course, things are happening, there is no one who can deny that, but what's happening is not happening to any individual personal self. Identification with a personal self is mis-identification with the wrong self. But yes this energy has to play itself out the way it does, and that is to feel as if there is a real separate character in life, and yes, this idea has to play the fictional character if we are to live sanely in the world. But there is a difference between knowing and not knowing life for a separate self is an illusion. Knowing nothing happens to 'me' but to life sometimes helps the character to face what ever comes it's way come what may. That's basically it. This is it. It's a happening. But not to you. There is no you.

If there's just life living itself without beginning or end. Where in that life.. would a 'you' fit in? ..and 'who' or 'what' would that be?

There have been times when I've felt that everyone/thing has the same mind, just that "each portion" is shaped by morphology and circumstance. So I'm also inclined to think that we are all one life. However, we are not only one, but also separate. We are all part of larger things, we are each a thing in itself (the self), and we are each also a collection of smaller things. The self is not the whole story, but a part of it.

Rubbish. You know nothing of some collective mind save your own. And that's because there is no collective mind.

[Dontaskme]

It does if you are the one. Nobody else gives a shit, because they are satisfied customers. Oh, let me throw a party for the rest of you happy customers.

Death is life's reward.

So, non-existence is existence's reward. Could've skipped the mid bit.

The mid bit is like a 5 course free lunch including the finest vintage champagne to wash it down.

All unwanted freebies are returned to sender.

The play of energy is not concerned by how it appears, how it appears will either work for or against it's very nature which is harmony and bliss. If how it appears is rejected as disliked, or unwanted , then that play of energy will just transfer it's energy into some other different transformation. It's not going to hang around waiting to see if the gift it gives to itself wants it or not...it's only concern is to express itself boundlessly free in harmony and equilibrium.

[Dalek Prime]

Death is life's reward.

So, non-existence is existence's reward. Could've skipped the mid bit.

The mid bit is like a 5 course free lunch including the finest vintage champagne to wash it down. With all the bones, fat, gristle included. And the champagme is a vinegrette at times.

All unwanted freebies are returned to sender. Only after the fact. A little late, I would say.

The play of energy is not concerned by how it appears, how it appears will either work for or against it's very nature which is harmony and bliss. If how it appears is rejected as disliked, or unwanted , then that play of energy will just transfer it's energy into some other different transformation. It's not going to hang around waiting to see if the gift it gives to itself wants it or not...it's only concern is to express itself boundlessly free in harmony and equilibrium. Void is perfection that required no dynamism. The rest is a jostle of equilibrium to try and match that perfection it tried poorly to replace.

[Greta]

There have been times when I've felt that everyone/thing has the same mind, just that "each portion" is shaped by morphology and circumstance. So I'm also inclined to think that we are all one life. However, we are not only one, but also separate. We are all part of larger things, we are each a thing in itself (the self), and we are each also a collection of smaller things. The self is not the whole story, but a part of it.

Rubbish. You know nothing of some collective mind save your own. And that's because there is no collective mind.

Dalek, you have just used the modular cliches of a "non existent" collective mind to express your opinion.

[Dontaskme]

Dalek, you have just used the modular cliches of a "non existent" collective mind to express your opinion.

It's not his opinion.

Opinions arise here from nowhere.

If it was his opinion then how come you get to know about it ?

There have been times when I've felt that everyone/thing has the same mind, just that "each portion" is shaped by morphology and circumstance. So I'm also inclined to think that we are all one life. However, we are not only one, but also separate. We are all part of larger things, we are each a thing in itself (the self), and we are each also a collection of smaller things. The self is not the whole story, but a part of it.

You asking questions and me answering is proof that mind is a noun and a verb, albeit illusory.

The self is not the whole story, but a part of it.

The self is the whole story. A part is an appearance of it, inseparable from it. Whole is whole and a part of whole is whole. Parts are not needed to make whole.

[Dalek Prime]

There have been times when I've felt that everyone/thing has the same mind, just that "each portion" is shaped by morphology and circumstance. So I'm also inclined to think that we are all one life. However, we are not only one, but also separate. We are all part of larger things, we are each a thing in itself (the self), and we are each also a collection of smaller things. The self is not the whole story, but a part of it.

Rubbish. You know nothing of some collective mind save your own. And that's because there is no collective mind.

Dalek, you have just used the modular cliches of a "non existent" collective mind to express your opinion.

Would you elucidate?

[thedoc]

I could find Bliss, by putting a little salt on my burger.

[Greta]

Rubbish. You know nothing of some collective mind save your own. And that's because there is no collective mind.

Dalek, you have just used the modular cliches of a "non existent" collective mind to express your opinion.

Would you elucidate?

Only recently it occurred to me, despite my sometimes reclusive way of life, that I am only barely unique, that almost everything about me is not unique, and that individual portion is like the tip of an iceberg. Most of the contents of my mind belong to my broader cultures and subcultures. Put me in the wild and I am as incomplete as an individual ant or a bee and I'd die quickly. We are eusocial animals whose mental contents are largely not their own but that of the group.

Consider "the tip of an iceberg" . How many of us have seen in iceberg or even know they exist if not for the reports of others? It's common knowledge that most of an iceberg is hidden under the surface. Most of our minds are not our own. Our personalities too are shaped by others.

We repeatedly use what I think of as "modular cliches" in speech - whole sentences taken from others. Watching this is a recent a recent hobby of mine, and I'm especially enchanted with its use by those in the public eye. They can speak for long periods without even giving a hint that they have an individual mind. It's pure parrotting. Of course, parrotting is information transmission (including use of language itself) and not to be derided per se, but it's fascinating to watch us (me included) being so unselfconsciously mechanistic.

I see cultures with increasingly interconnectness as collective minds in formation, states that precede the emergence of meta-minds just as nerve nets preceded into brains in evolutionary history. An emergent meta-mind - from our perspective - need not be self aware or experience anything to operate and affect (enslave?) us as if it were akin to a human mind.

[Greta]

Sorry Dalek, I just had a billy and went off track

Aside from emergent minds is also the idea that we really are all the same in a fundamental way, with only morphology and experience making us different. There appears to be nothing fundamental or intrinsic that is different between any person or animal; change the morphology and the experience and you change the being. We are like pieces of one living thing, each occupying different bodies and experiences and entirely defined by those things.

In a sense, LUCA has been developing for four billion years and its different parts diversified. It's only for practical considerations that we give different-seeming parts of the biosphere different names. The whole thing is still one cohesive system that, like any system, has its good times (growth) and bad times (mass extinctions).

[Dubious]

Yes! By virtue of existing, knowing we aren't going to exist again.

[surreptitious57]

Aside from emergent minds is also the idea that we really are all the same in a fundamental way with only morphology and experience making
us different. There appears to be nothing fundamental or intrinsic that is different between any person or animal change the morphology and the experience and you change the being. We are like pieces of one living thing each occupying different bodies and experiences and entirely defined by those things

For species such as bees or ants this is most definitely true because they work collectively to achieve a common goal. Human beings also do this but not exclusively so. For they are individuals with their own personality unique to them even if character traits are common or universal to all

[Greta]

Aside from emergent minds is also the idea that we really are all the same in a fundamental way with only morphology and experience making
us different. There appears to be nothing fundamental or intrinsic that is different between any person or animal change the morphology and the experience and you change the being. We are like pieces of one living thing each occupying different bodies and experiences and entirely defined by those things

For species such as bees or ants this is most definitely true because they work collectively to achieve a common goal. Human beings also do this but not exclusively so. For they are individuals with their own personality unique to them even if character traits are common or universal to all

It's a matter of degree. I guess I speak for myself when I notice that most of me isn't me, Greta the individual, but countless bits taken from others. There's barely a thought I've had that hasn't been thought by numerous others. If I dies there would be almost zero loss to the world, aside from those directly affected. All my thoughts are already being thought and most of them are ripoffs :lol: . I say this, not in sadness. Actually, it's nice to know that even when I snuff it, all those "good" observations I have (ho ho) will be thought by others anyway. The future will most likely find more rational, informed and enabled champions of the ideas we tout today anyway.

So my impression is that "most of me" is the body of humanity and its ideas, with the individual component being much smaller. Heck, I'm not just speaking for myself. Hang politeness :D. Every day I observe and marvel at the way people operate by rote, so often parrotting ideas of an admired exemplar. Then again, if you don't parrot - if you are truly original - then you tend not to be understood by most https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... t-you-see/.

I expect that most philosophers and people attracted to philosophy sites would be considered to be "loners" by extroverts. Convention is enforced in social situations with unconventionality being greeted with relative suspicion. We soon learn to "play the game", to speak the bland little expected platitudes. Those who favour philosophy will tend to eschew social games where one's display behaviours are observed and considered for their worthiness, being tired of the games and more interested in broader narratives. Even so, we thinking loner types too are less individual than we realise. The advent of mass media has made us less individualistic than those prior to the information age, more likely to fit into a category or type.

// rambling :)

[surreptitious57]

All emotion exists within a spectrum. All thought also exists within a spectrum. But within these parameters there is so much variation that our personalities are totally unique. Although we are a social species too so it is not surprising we share the same ideals and morals as many others Especially friends who are so because of their mutual compatibility. Although if instead you were a virtual loner like I am you would not be any more you than if you were incredibly popular. As you are still a unique individual regardless of how many friends you have or how common your world view is. The paradox is that we are all unique while simultaneously being a member of society. As they are two states of existence which
one can not exit outside of regardless of circumstance. So then rather than emphasise one over the other both should be equally acknowledged

[Greta]

As they are two states of existence which one can not exit outside of regardless of circumstance. So then rather than emphasise one over the other both should be equally acknowledged

Yes, the two states can be different. Consider a genuine hermit who has been out of touch with other humans for a few decades. That person would be a genuine individual, like nonsocial species like some big cats, bears, rhinos, wolverines, orangutans. Social behaviour has benefits and costs, the former providing possible enhanced security and greater collective empowerment but at the cost of compromise, losing the freedom to be entirely yourself.

There are unmistakable differences between us but, then again, nothing is the same so that is inevitable. The question is degree. Similarities and differences are relative to the scope of observation. From the standpoint of being an individual, everyone I meet is clearly different, individual. No argument there.

However, when you stand back and consider people's behaviour from a supra-personal perspective then we are exceptionally, often comically and sometimes sadly, conformist. Our conformist behaviours manifest automatically in countless ways that we don't notice because we are so deeply conditioned. There are wonderful absurdities to be found in display behaviours of both humans and other species.

[surreptitious57]

However when you stand back and consider peoples behaviour from a supra personal perspective then we are exceptionally often comically and sometimes sadly conformist. Our conformist behaviours manifest automatically in countless ways that we dont notice because we are so deeply conditioned. There are wonderful absurdities to be found in display behaviours of both humans and other species

That is probably explained by us having the same basic physical form as each other. I do not think
that it is because of conformity. That applies more to how we think rather than to body language