First of all you will have to tell me what you think the mind is..before I can continue with this part of the discussion.?Immanuel Can wrote:Ummm...don't you have to have a "mind" in order to make such an observation? In which case, how can you make any statement about the universe without using your "mind"? And then what could you possibly mean by "the universe functions quite well," since absent your mind, no such utterance would be possible?
Again, what do you think the mind is?Immanuel Can wrote:But this amounts to denying your own idea about "the universe functioning without a mind." You have a mind, don't you? How else would you be writing? So you know only a universe with minds in it. How then could you possibly make any confident claim about how it works without minds involved?
Does a flower need a mind to function as a flower?
I seriously want to discuss with you Immanuel because I like to engage intelligent mature people who are willing to give people who have ideas that are outside of usual mainstream way of thinking a chance to speak their thoughts without ridiculing, name calling or dismissing them as talking nonsense. You come across as a really likeable mature person. And I hope that we can teach or show each other something here without resorting to I know more than you kind of mentality.
I don't claim to know what I am talking about, I'm simply talking from pure experiential experience or knowledge of what I think mind and self are, and what comes out is not pre-thought about in any way, it's pure spontaneous ideas arising from nowhere , I have taught myself to think the way I do. What I talk about has not come from a text book written by human knowledge, which I consider illusory...rather, it has come from my own sense of beingness which I concider real.
Not everyone is going to agree with my ideas. Don't worry about that for now.Immanuel Can wrote:That's not an empirical observation, whatever else it is. It's also not a logic-based proposition. But then, how can you take for granted, as you seem to, that people will all naturally agree with it?
Dontaskme: In a few, the structure of the overlay collapses and that which is experienced cannot be shared because sharing requires stepping back into the conceptual overlay. Those that have seen IT easily recognise each other...something comfortable,unspoken,familiar,resonates.
Being well educated doesn't make you understand the meta position of reality, sorry. The meta position albeit an illusory idea is experiential to the one it has happened to. Intellectual intelligence has got nothing to do with it. If it hasn't happened to you yet, then it is only ''verb life'' that has dictated that not happening to you, and not your assumed intellectual inability to understand it.Immanuel Can wrote:Sorry. I'm a reasonably well-educated person, but I can't make heads or tails of these sentences. Are you maybe just being poetic? Or can you clarify?
You can't understand something until it has been your experience. In this case, no you can have an experience - the you is the experience. And that realisation can be realised believe it or not.