The Existential Crisis

[Age]

But who ( and / or what ) is the me which is directly affected by some things but supposedly not by most things ?

And what things do directly affect that me and what things do not directly affect that me ?

Also are there things that indirectly affect that me and how does that me distinguish them apart ?

The me is i and the things that directly / non directly / indirectly affect me are too many to mention

Just one, two, or a few would suffice.

I do not need to distinguish between them but just deal with those that do affect me when necessary

You might actually 'need' to some times, which we could have looked at, that is; if we had some examples.

'Deal with' and 'when necessary' are extremely relative terms, which have no actual meaning while we have no actual examples to use and go off.

[Dontaskme]

The ending of fear is death, and you don't want that to happen. I am not talking of wiping out the phobias of the body. They are necessary for survival. The death of fear is the only death.

When you know nothing, you say a lot. When you know something, there is nothing to say.

There is no individual there at all. There is only a certain gathering of knowledge - which is thought - but no individuality there.

[surreptitious57]

Could the position The observable Universe IS expanding potentially change or could this NOT potentially happen ?

And if it could potentially change then how does that effect your position / view that you are being as detached as possible ?

The observable Universe is in a constant state of motion and so there is always the potential for change
But that has got nothing to do with me being as detached as possible as my position on that is the same

[surreptitious57]

Are you able to SHOW with evidence that proves your claim that the observable universe IS DEFINITELY expanding ?

My position is exactly the same as yours - namely that part of the Universe is expanding not all of the Universe
The observable Universe is the part of it that is expanding as the unobservable part of it cannot be seen at all

[surreptitious57]

You are aware right that in order to decide to not waste mental energy then you are using so called mental energy ?

Yes I am aware of this but in deciding that I am not actually wasting any mental energy and so it is absolutely fine

[surreptitious57]

The me is i and the things that directly / non directly / indirectly affect me are too many to mention
I do not need to distinguish between them but just deal with those that do affect me when necessary

You might actually need to some times which we could have looked at that is if we had some examples
Deal with and when necessary are extremely relative terms which have no actual meaning while we have no actual examples to use

No need for examples as this is just for me and so not really relevant to the thread and also it would be too much mental energy for me

[Age]

Could the position The observable Universe IS expanding potentially change or could this NOT potentially happen ?

And if it could potentially change then how does that effect your position / view that you are being as detached as possible ?

The observable Universe is in a constant state of motion and so there is always the potential for change

So, the position that "the observable Universe is DEFINITELY expanding" could in fact not be true at all, and thus change as well, correct?

Or, is there NO potential for this?

But that has got nothing to do with me being as detached as possible as my position on that is the same

And is that also a DEFINITE position?

How could someone be so called "detached" if they have and HOLD a position, which is 'DEFINITELY', thus absolutely, True.

Also, I tried to gain clarity over who this 'me' is, and what 'it' is supposedly detached from, but all I could ascertain is 'me' is 'i'. Are you absolutely sure that 'me' could not be any more 'detached' at all?

[Age]

The ending of fear is death, and you don't want that to happen. I am not talking of wiping out the phobias of the body. They are necessary for survival. The death of fear is the only death.

When you know nothing, you say a lot. When you know something, there is nothing to say.

There is no individual there at all. There is only a certain gathering of knowledge - which is thought - but no individuality there.

But, if as you say there is only ONE Consciousness, then that would imply, literally, 'an individual', or, literally, 'individuality'.

If there is only ONE, then that would be 'individuality' in its most accurate and Truest sense. Therefore, that ONE would, literally, be the Truest and thus ONLY real form of an 'individual, BEING. The "other" perceived individual 'beings' would, as you say, just be ....?

That ONE maybe be able to be broken down into smaller number of parts, but ONLY, figuratively, with the use of different words. Obviously, this ONE can NOT be broken down into smaller parts, literally, with words. Or, could It?

Could the only way to break down the ONE into smaller be, literally, with words only?

If, for example, there is only ONE Consciousness, then could what causes Consciousness, Itself, to be actually Real and True, actually be just a number of certain different labels, or words?

[surreptitious57]

How could someone be so called detached if they have and HOLD a position which is DEFINITELY thus absolutely True ?

But I am not holding onto it as if it was absolutely true - I think it is true at this point in time but that is all that I can say
I could at any time change my mind or could hold onto it for the rest of my life but either way makes no difference to me

[surreptitious57]

Are you absolutely sure that me could not be any more detached at all ?

me could be more detached but it is not something that is anyway forced
Especially as me is merely passing through and so will not always be here

[Age]

Are you able to SHOW with evidence that proves your claim that the observable universe IS DEFINITELY expanding ?

My position is exactly the same as yours - namely that part of the Universe is expanding not all of the Universe

But my view is that only parts of the observable universe are expanding, just away from the earth only. Is that your view also?

To me, the observable universe, itself, is NOT expanding.

There is blue shift AND red shift. And, if 'red shift' means expanding, getting further away while 'blue shift' means coming closer, contracting, then what is red shift and what is blue shift is only in relation to the earth's perspective. Remember, absolutely EVERY thing is relative to the observer. So, if there is both these contradicting red and blue shifts being observed, in the observable universe, then obviously BOTH the observable universe can NOT be expanding AND contracting at the very exact same time.

But, what could actually be occurring, and what is very simply and very easily explained by the cyclical nature of the Universe, Itself, is that because galaxies are circling around one another, then that would mean galaxies are circling around the galaxy, which 'us', observing human beings, and the earth are in and a part of. So, that would mean not just parts of galaxies would be moving away from us, and earth, while other parts are moving closer towards us, depending on what side of the galaxy is being observed, some galaxies themselves would also be moving away from us while some other galaxies, themselves, would be moving closer towards us.

All of this does NOT work against, nor counter at all any view of there being an expansion from the, so called, "big bang". Obviously with ALL, so called, "bangs" there is an expansion of matter. But, what happens with ALL "bangs", which are just a part of the Universe, is that they happen IN the Universe. Just because human beings call one of these "bangs" a "big bang" this in NO way infers NOR implies that it was the beginning of Everything.

Just like with ALL "bangs" or 'expansion' of matter if there was NO prior knowledge of what was BEFORE the 'bang/expansion', then there also obviously can be NO observance of 'it'. But, obviously, ALL of the expanding matter was part of 'it' (whatever it was) BEFORE 'it' 'expanded'.

The observable Universe is the part of it that is expanding as the unobservable part of it cannot be seen at all

Do you really think that what the 'observable universe', and what the 'unobservable universe', really is needs explaining in a philosophy forum?

I think you will find that your position is actually NOT the exact same as mine. As my, so called, "position" IS; The observable universe is NOT expanding. But this might be because I SEE a bit further than you can, and do, at the moment? My 'observable Universe' might be a bit bigger than your 'observable universe'. We will just have to wait and SEE.

[Age]

You are aware right that in order to decide to not waste mental energy then you are using so called mental energy ?

Yes I am aware of this but in deciding that I am not actually wasting any mental energy and so it is absolutely fine

As long as all is fine, then that is fine by me also.

[Age]

The me is i and the things that directly / non directly / indirectly affect me are too many to mention
I do not need to distinguish between them but just deal with those that do affect me when necessary

You might actually need to some times which we could have looked at that is if we had some examples
Deal with and when necessary are extremely relative terms which have no actual meaning while we have no actual examples to use

No need for examples as this is just for me and so not really relevant to the thread and also it would be too much mental energy for me

Okay.

[Age]

How could someone be so called detached if they have and HOLD a position which is DEFINITELY thus absolutely True ?

But I am not holding onto it as if it was absolutely true - I think it is true at this point in time but that is all that I can say

Okay. So, you think that the observable Universe is DEFINITELY expanding, but only at this point in time, when you wrote that, correct?

I could at any time change my mind or could hold onto it for the rest of my life but either way makes no difference to me

I will not question again about what this 'mind' thing is, nor what this 'you' thing is, and how 'you', could change that thing, which you say you own.

Also, I NEVER mentioned any thing about 'holding onto' as if it was absolutely true. To me, using the word DEFINITELY in a position means, or at least implies or infers, that there is a sense of being absolutely true.

One could be HOLDING a position, but the position, itself, is not being proposed as being absolutely true. And, if you are holding the position that the observable Universe is DEFINITELY expanding, then you are HOLDING that position, at the time that HOLD that position.

[Age]

Are you absolutely sure that me could not be any more detached at all ?

me could be more detached but it is not something that is anyway forced

I would find 'forced' actually being the opposite of being actually 'detached', or what I prefer to just call 'OPEN'.

Especially as me is merely passing through and so will not always be here

As I have alluded to before, 'me' will always 'be here', but just not in any sense that would be of any benefit to the 'me'. This is because the 'me' STOPS being conscious of 'being here'

See, whatever a 'me' does will leave some kind of influence, mentally AND physically, 'here', (in Life, Existence, or thee Universe), forever more. So, from that perspective, 'me' will 'always be here', in one form or another. EVERY 'me' changes things from how they once were. The 'me', sadly and unfortunately, however, will NOT be able to bear witness to ALL of these changes.

However, the Real and True 'Me' is a completely other story. But this is only Truly understood when 'Who 'I' am?' becomes FULLY KNOWN.