Why relativity is an illusion.

So what's really going on?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 4051
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: Why relativity is an illusion.

Post by Dontaskme » Sun Oct 30, 2016 7:45 pm

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? :?
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: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?
Again, what do you think the mind is?
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.
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?
Not everyone is going to agree with my ideas. Don't worry about that for now.
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.
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?
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.

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.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 4330
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Why relativity is an illusion.

Post by Immanuel Can » Sun Oct 30, 2016 9:59 pm

Dontaskme wrote: 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.?
That's not the topic here, but I'll give you a quick answer: it's the thing I'm using to formulate these words, and the thing that's receiving these words through your ears. in that sense, a "mind" is the thing I'm talking with, and also the thing I'm talking to.

That'll do for the moment.
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?
Again, what do you think the mind is?
Does a flower need a mind to function as a flower?
A bizarre question. It was you who posited that the a universe could exist without a mind. I didn't. Ironically, you posited it with your mind. So you have no experience of any such universe. One thing you know for sure; the universe you know has a "mind" in it...if nothing else, your own. :shock: And maybe mine, and maybe others too.
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.
Of course. But I hope you don't mind if I question you about what you mean. I'm not trying to be insulting or pedantic: I'm trying to take your ideas seriously and treat them as important things to think about.

Think of it this way, if you will. When I was a coach, I always taught my players to respect the opponent. Respecting him or her meant always bringing your best game, and never "coasting" when playing them. It might mean you'd slaughter them, but it was much more insulting if they realized you weren't really bothering to try for them. So respect means always playing your best. At least, that's what I told them.

Similarly, I think this: if I take your ideas seriously, then I have to bring a strong "game" to the discussion. If I don't, then I would be insulting you, wouldn't I? And likewise, if you brought anything less than your strong game to discussion with me, I would feel taken for granted or disrespected. But as you point out, a "strong" game does not involve rudeness or insults, so you can expect none of those from me. If anything seems that way, I will correct it immediately.
Being well educated doesn't make you understand the meta position of reality, sorry.
Alright.
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.

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.
I guess that's a "game" I cannot play.

In some measure, I know logic, and I know something of how empirical evidence works. I know some poetics, and I know some philosophy. But I don't know what "meta-positional" rhetoric is, and I don't think I can join you there. It sounds sort of quasi-religious, a sort of "enlightenment" or "gnostic" idea. Ironically, I also know gnosticism very well, and don't think much of it. So whatever it is that has happened to you, I think you're right: it's not going to happen to me, I think. (That's not intended as an insult, just an observation.)

More importantly, though: I still don't understand what you meant by "relativity." Can you clear just that point up for me?

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 4051
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: Why relativity is an illusion.

Post by Dontaskme » Mon Oct 31, 2016 10:17 am

Dontaskme wrote: 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:That's not the topic here, but I'll give you a quick answer: it's the thing I'm using to formulate these words, and the thing that's receiving these words through your ears. in that sense, a "mind" is the thing I'm talking with, and also the thing I'm talking to.
Well actually, the mind is very much the topic here, since everything is born of mind. The point I'm making is no one knows what the mind actually is. We know the world must come from it, evidenced in what's appearing as a world of things, functions and actions. We know there is definitely a phenomenal happening going on, but we don't know how, or why, or what, or where the mind is actually located. That's because the mind is a mysterious little blighter. It's certainly not a ''thing'' we can separate ourselves from and look at it. The mind itself may be an ethereal substance which creates space, time, energy and the contents thereof. The universe may simply come into being only when the Awareness/Consciousness/Mind get aroused and just wants to experience a phenomenal world.
We're all assuming we've got our own unique mind, which is taken for granted, and we call it ''I''.. simply because it would be silly to say we don't have a mind, rather the mind has us. I mean how can something we cannot know or look at have us? This is what I want to discuss here at the forum. I'm not content with following the status quo of how things are according to human pseudo cultural conditioning, which most are generally happy to go along with without question, being totally oblivious to the fact that the world as they see it is a programme they them self have imputed into their biological computer processor namely, the brain.

What I mean by ''relativity'' in this case is relationship. Maybe I should have said ''Why relationship is an illusion'' If everything is of One Mind. Relationship is illusion...what is so hard about realising that?

I want to get to the the real truth of the matter. So what is your take on what I've said here?

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 4051
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: Why relativity is an illusion.

Post by Dontaskme » Mon Oct 31, 2016 10:44 am

Dam: Again, what do you think the mind is?
Does a flower need a mind to function as a flower?
Immanuel Can wrote:A bizarre question. It was you who posited that the a universe could exist without a mind. I didn't. Ironically, you posited it with your mind. So you have no experience of any such universe. One thing you know for sure; the universe you know has a "mind" in it...if nothing else, your own. :shock: And maybe mine, and maybe others too.
Okay sorry for the confusion, I'm talking about the object flower? Sorry I sometimes am a little confusing as to what I mean. So what I mean is an object doesn't have a mind. A 'flower' is an object known, it doesn't have a mind.
And that the object is an appearance in the mind. Now you have posited that there is one thing you know for sure and that is the universe you know has a ''mind'' in it.'' ...your own and others. But how can that be correct Immanuel C? ...what if the mind is not in the universe..rather, the universe is in the mind as in an ''appearance'' in the mind?

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 4051
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: Why relativity is an illusion.

Post by Dontaskme » Mon Oct 31, 2016 11:02 am

Immanuel Can wrote:Of course. But I hope you don't mind if I question you about what you mean. I'm not trying to be insulting or pedantic: I'm trying to take your ideas seriously and treat them as important things to think about.

Think of it this way, if you will. When I was a coach, I always taught my players to respect the opponent. Respecting him or her meant always bringing your best game, and never "coasting" when playing them. It might mean you'd slaughter them, but it was much more insulting if they realized you weren't really bothering to try for them. So respect means always playing your best. At least, that's what I told them.
Thanks, and I agree with you. In fact I've always liked your posts. I know we didn't get off to a good start in the beginning when we first starting talking, but since you have decided to return to my threads, that tells me a lot about your real character, I feel like I am getting to know you a little better, which I personally think is an admirable character, whom I respect. You could never be insulting and I've already seen you are not of that particular character that would want to demean others, instead you want to get on side with others to understand them better, which is how it should be.


Immanuel Can wrote:Similarly, I think this: if I take your ideas seriously, then I have to bring a strong "game" to the discussion. If I don't, then I would be insulting you, wouldn't I? And likewise, if you brought anything less than your strong game to discussion with me, I would feel taken for granted or disrespected. But as you point out, a "strong" game does not involve rudeness or insults, so you can expect none of those from me. If anything seems that way, I will correct it immediately.
Very nicely put, and thanks for being of a warm and generous heart. I know your heart, it's how you conduct yourself here. Strong, confident and Impeccable in my opinion.

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 4051
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: Why relativity is an illusion.

Post by Dontaskme » Mon Oct 31, 2016 11:35 am

Immanuel Can wrote: I guess that's a "game" I cannot play.

In some measure, I know logic, and I know something of how empirical evidence works. I know some poetics, and I know some philosophy. But I don't know what "meta-positional" rhetoric is, and I don't think I can join you there. It sounds sort of quasi-religious, a sort of "enlightenment" or "gnostic" idea. Ironically, I also know gnosticism very well, and don't think much of it. So whatever it is that has happened to you, I think you're right: it's not going to happen to me, I think. (That's not intended as an insult, just an observation.)
What happened to me, is that I disappeared as a single entity, one that I had once assumed to exist, all because I saw other which triggered a thought that other was separate from me. The idea of separation stuck without ever questioning the thought that made me believe in separation. I never thought to ponder how can a thought divide ...when I always knew in my heart that nothing is in relationship here, and that all is one undivided seamless reality. Then one day I spontaneously woke up from the dream of separation, it just happened to me, not me, but to the life that was appearing as me... What was left of me after that was just the memory, or the thought, the thought I thought was a separate me. And it was funny because I'd never even seen the thought of me, that I'd just assumed to be me. This is what's known as waking up to your real ethereal nature, self.

What you/we/I claim to know is the knowledge we have made-up. Including the Knowledge of yourself as a single entity. All knowledge of anything is illusory, or story. The real you can have no knowledge of itself. Just as a flower has no knowledge of itself. The flower is known by the real knower in which the flower arises, it is known instantly as it arises, in the only knowing there is which is awareness/consciousness/mind. The awareness/consciousness/ mind cannot be known by that which it knows.

The unreal 'you' is knowledge.

The real 'you' is unknowable.

Knowing the difference between real and unreal is taking the meta position. Even though the idea there is a someone to take a meta position is nought but another fantasy story arising from the pure empty silence of space, ever returning to itself.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 4330
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Why relativity is an illusion.

Post by Immanuel Can » Mon Oct 31, 2016 12:48 pm

Dontaskme wrote:Well actually, the mind is very much the topic here, since everything is born of mind.
I don't usually see non-sequitur and begging the question achieved in the same line, but there it is...
What I mean by ''relativity'' in this case is relationship. Maybe I should have said ''Why relationship is an illusion'' If everything is of One Mind. Relationship is illusion...what is so hard about realising that?
It's not a "realization." It's a contentious postulate. It doesn't just "happen", so to speak, like getting hit by a lightning bolt -- it requires proof.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 4330
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Why relativity is an illusion.

Post by Immanuel Can » Mon Oct 31, 2016 12:51 pm

Dontaskme wrote:Now you have posited that there is one thing you know for sure and that is the universe you know has a ''mind'' in it.'' ...your own and others. But how can that be correct Immanuel C? ...what if the mind is not in the universe..rather, the universe is in the mind as in an ''appearance'' in the mind?
Read Descartes, and you'll know why. It's not possible to doubt the existence of your own mind...because, who would be doing the "doubting," then, if no "mind" exists to do it? :shock: So you're certain of the existence of your own mind, even if you're unclear about mine or other people's. Or you should be certain of that: you have every good reason to be. And if you're not, there's no "you" to be unclear, so there's no question anymore.

Think hard, and you'll see Descartes' point.

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 4051
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: Why relativity is an illusion.

Post by Dontaskme » Mon Oct 31, 2016 7:06 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: Read Descartes, and you'll know why. It's not possible to doubt the existence of your own mind...because, who would be doing the "doubting," then, if no "mind" exists to do it? :shock: So you're certain of the existence of your own mind, even if you're unclear about mine or other people's. Or you should be certain of that: you have every good reason to be. And if you're not, there's no "you" to be unclear, so there's no question anymore.

Think hard, and you'll see Descartes' point.
So according to you and Descartes... separate entities just show up from out of nowhere concretely formed? And that human species have their own separate mind or self who from out of nowhere becomes conscious?

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 4330
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Why relativity is an illusion.

Post by Immanuel Can » Mon Oct 31, 2016 7:36 pm

Dontaskme wrote:So according to you and Descartes... separate entities just show up from out of nowhere concretely formed? And that human species have their own separate mind or self who from out of nowhere becomes conscious?
I can tell you didn't read Descartes, because your response doesn't reflect his argument. I can only say that you would find it enriching to engage it, but of course I cannot compel you to do so. Consider my recommendation of his argument as me doing you a favour; but like all favours, of course, it's optional.

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 4051
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: Why relativity is an illusion.

Post by Dontaskme » Mon Oct 31, 2016 7:54 pm

Immanuel Can wrote: It's not a "realization." It's a contentious postulate. It doesn't just "happen", so to speak, like getting hit by a lightning bolt -- it requires proof.
A realisation is a thought. ''I think therefore I am'' is a thought. There is no identifiable location from which thoughts are born. The assumption there is an ''I'' or ''mind'' thinking a thought is just more thought...thoughts are born and thoughts that are born, then die, they are free to come and go, no one has been able to hold a thought. Or separate them self from the thought to prove a thought exists. Every thing in life belongs to life, in a borderless, impermanent flux of causal continuance. So no thing is being born or dying. There's just this beginningless / endless appearance of life.
There is no division between life and death.. contrasts are dependently arisen, dependently identified and therefore without their own nature. There is an understanding / realisation of the interdependence of ALL things in contrast / relation to the apparent separateness of things by association. There is no identifiable location from which any thing is born, or to which any thing returns, and so, there is no place to die or be born. Nor is there a human species or self who from out of nowhere becomes conscious...and yet here is life without a doubt, but there is no you to get proof of your own mind because you would have to be outside of it to get it. But according to Descartes we all have a mind so that's that, we must accept that because that's what he believes.

Okay, what ever, so be it, if that's what's believed...or should I say imagined.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 4330
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Why relativity is an illusion.

Post by Immanuel Can » Mon Oct 31, 2016 11:02 pm

Dontaskme wrote: ''I think therefore I am'' is a thought.
If it's a "thought," then there's someone to have it. In that case, you certainly must know that you (the thinker) must exist, even if no one else does. There's simply no way to have it otherwise, for then there's nobody to "have it" any way.

If you do not exist, the thought doesn't either, and the discussion ends...and it ends not just because there's nobody for you to express it to, but also nobody doing the expressing of that thought.

In other words, it doesn't exist.

User avatar
waechter418
Posts: 134
Joined: Mon Jul 20, 2015 12:19 am
Location: Costa Rica
Contact:

Re: Why relativity is an illusion.

Post by waechter418 » Mon Oct 31, 2016 11:45 pm

Descartes also claimed to be because he thinks (to be?)
Reasoning (thought) is known to entrap the reasoner (thinker) - more so when latter believes to be able to escape with the help of former.

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 4330
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: Why relativity is an illusion.

Post by Immanuel Can » Tue Nov 01, 2016 12:03 am

waechter418 wrote:Descartes also claimed to be because he thinks (to be?)
Reasoning (thought) is known to entrap the reasoner (thinker) - more so when latter believes to be able to escape with the help of former.
The who? Whom does it trap? :shock:

Dontaskme says there's no such thing. There's no "whom" that can be trapped, he thinks.

Clearly there is no crime when there's no victim. :lol:

User avatar
Dontaskme
Posts: 4051
Joined: Sat Mar 12, 2016 2:07 pm

Re: Why relativity is an illusion.

Post by Dontaskme » Tue Nov 01, 2016 1:50 pm

Immanuel Can wrote:
Dontaskme wrote: ''I think therefore I am'' is a thought.
If it's a "thought," then there's someone to have it.
But then doesn't the 'someone' arise in the same moment as the 'thought' ?... for how else could a 'someone' be known .. if it's not the known thought itself arising in the same instant?

If the 'someone' and the 'thought' arise mutually in the same moment.. then it is thought itself that creates a thinker? Absence of 'thought' where is the thinker? Any thinker had to be a thought. The thinking is the thinker itself. The thinker cannot get rid of the thought, they come together as one conjoined package.
In other words, no one is thinking...there's just thinking ?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest