There is no proof that separate identity exists.

[Atla]

Comfortably numb I think they call it.

Your approach doesn't work, because it makes everyday human life pretty much impossible for the vast majority. It only "works" for grumpy people living in solitude.

Hence in the end it's another dead-end. But at least you are awake unlike 99.9% of Westerners. But nondualism has to be fully integrated into everyday life, if it is to be accepted as the mainstream self-evident view.

[Dontaskme]

Comfortably numb I think they call it.

Your approach doesn't work, because it makes everyday human life pretty much impossible for the vast majority. It only "works" for grumpy people living in solitude.

Hence in the end it's another dead-end. But at least you are awake unlike 99.9% of Westerners. But nondualism has to be fully integrated into everyday life, if it is to be accepted as the mainstream self-evident view.

I agree, but my approach has nothing to do with other people, it works for me, as for intergrating it into society ..oh yeah, like that is ever going to happen. It's a personal preference. Also, I'm not permanently grumpy, I appear grumpy to others because I'm not choosing to be the centre of attention life and soul of the party...but what they don't see is that inside I'm as contented and at peace as I'll ever be.

Retreat to the mind of no mind is my motto, peace amid the chaos, in the world but not of it...but of course the mind is there to be used as a practicality in order to function and operate in society ....but why waste time pretending to be someone your not when you can just be yourself and get a big yes of approval every time, it's so beautiful. I'm no ones bitch slave, and that's been half the problem, others can't handle that, I can but they can''t.

Each to their own, it's theirs to dream.

[Dontaskme]

Comfortably numb I think they call it.

Your approach doesn't work, because it makes everyday human life pretty much impossible for the vast majority. It only "works" for grumpy people living in solitude.

Your perception of solitude is not the way I perceive solitude, I'm not living in solitude, I am solitude. Meaning, nothing bothers me any more, peoples opinions and actions are like water off a ducks back. I love company, just as long as they don't cross into my personal space, by expecting me to give them something, for I have nothing to give anyone they them self cannot give to them self....obviously if they were in need of medical assistance I would help by phoning a hospital, or if they'd run out of sugar or needed some money ..of course I'd help out. That's just how life operates. Don't get me wrong here.

[Atla]

Comfortably numb I think they call it.

Your approach doesn't work, because it makes everyday human life pretty much impossible for the vast majority. It only "works" for grumpy people living in solitude.

Your perception of solitude is not the way I perceive solitude, I'm not living in solitude, I am solitude. Meaning, nothing bothers me any more, peoples opinions and actions are like water off a ducks back. I love company, just as long as they don't cross into my personal space, by expecting me to give them something, for I have nothing to give anyone they them self cannot give to them self....obviously if they were in need of medical assistance I would help by phoning a hospital, or if they'd run out of sugar or needed some money ..of course I'd help out. That's just how life operates. Don't get me wrong here.

To be perfectly honest, I totally disagree with even that. I do think that the best identification is: "I am this human". The absolute viewpoint, that we are also everything else, is secondary, even if it's more true in the end.

But to me, to be alive is, above all things, to experience empathy and companionship. I think Buddhist are mentally ill, because they give up what is most important. And then they even have the audacity to reintroduce their fake compassion in the end.

[Dontaskme]

To be perfectly honest, I totally disagree with even that. I do think that the best identification is: "I am this human". The absolute viewpoint, that we are also everything else, is secondary, even if it's more true in the end.

I agree that we have to pretend to be a human. Otherwise, we'd be taken away by the men in white coats.

But to me, to be alive is, above all things, to experience empathy and companionship. I think Buddhist are mentally ill, because they give up what is most important. And then they even have the audacity to reintroduce their fake compassion in the end.

I agree, the reason for living is to become lucid in our own dream and make it the best dream we've ever had.

I don't agree that anyone is mentally ill for abstaining from mainstream society. If that's what a Buddhist chooses to do with it's dream chance then that's exactly what it's choosing, it's no business of anyone but their own. Buddhists are very empathetic towards all living things. What they choose to do with their own being is up to them.

[Atla]

To be perfectly honest, I totally disagree with even that. I do think that the best identification is: "I am this human". The absolute viewpoint, that we are also everything else, is secondary, even if it's more true in the end.

I agree that we have to pretend to be a human. Otherwise, we'd be taken away by the men in white coats.

But to me, to be alive is, above all things, to experience empathy and companionship. I think Buddhist are mentally ill, because they give up what is most important. And then they even have the audacity to reintroduce their fake compassion in the end.

I agree, the reason for living is to become lucid in our own dream and make it the best dream we've ever had.

I don't agree that anyone is mentally ill for abstaining from mainstream society. If that's what a Buddhist chooses to do with it's dream chance then that's exactly what it's choosing, it's no business of anyone but their own. Buddhists are very empathetic towards all living things. What they choose to do with their own being is up to them.

It's not that they abstain from mainstream society, it's that they throw out the human self as much as possible, just like you have. And there's no real empathy after that, just the pretension of it. You are right, you are no longer human either, just a construct. You are irrelevant.

[Dontaskme]

It's not that they abstain from mainstream society, it's that they throw out the human self as much as possible, just like you have. And there's no real empathy after that, just the pretension of it. You are right, you are no longer human either, just a construct. You are irrelevant.

I don't agree on all points.

Speak for yourself, don't project your personal ideals at this one here, as if this one here has those thoughts too, it's not what this one here thinks at all.

You are fucking clueless at to what I think and believe.

[Atla]

It's not that they abstain from mainstream society, it's that they throw out the human self as much as possible, just like you have. And there's no real empathy after that, just the pretension of it. You are right, you are no longer human either, just a construct. You are irrelevant.

I don't agree on all points.

Speak for yourself, don't project your personal ideals at this one here, as if this one here has those thoughts too, it's not what this one here thinks at all.

You are fucking clueless at to what I think and believe.

What you think are a bunch of delusions where you want to have your cake and eat it too. So stop spreading your delusions, you are only a disservice to nondualism this way. Not only are you irrelevant, you also make things worse.

[Dontaskme]

What you think are a bunch of delusions where you want to have your cake and eat it too. So stop spreading your delusions, you are only a disservice to nondualism this way. Not only are you irrelevant, you also make things worse.

Well then it's a good job that I do not have to believe a single word you've said.

No one is forced to believe their own delusions.

[Eodnhoj7]

By observing the concept of "separate" you actualize it as a concept, and as a concept by default it reflects into further physical and abstract dimensions. If separation does not exist, then how can you argue about "separation" without acknowledging something exists.

You can argue it is an illusion, but they would require us to have the choice or ability to be deceived. If that is the case then by default people may choose "separation", as to believe in an illusion is to separate oneself from truth.

I agree with your intelligently thought out reply.

The nature of "I" also, in itself acts a boundary which seperates ourselves from others. In a seperate respect it allows a form of "unification" within the individual that permits not just the expression of free will, which acts as a causal force in its own right, but the ability to observe the dualism as an extension of the unity...or multiplicity as approximation of "unity" that exists as the limits of the "unity" itself.

In these respects we can observe that "I", in many respects, not only observes an origin of the nature of measurement (unity as a summative totality, and multiplicity as the change through the relation of parts) but fundamentally is a form of measurement in itself both qualitatively and quantitatively.

"I" in both the practice of reason, and from an intuitive observation of its symbolic syntax, observes the mirroring of "1" as the origin of both subjective and objective measurement.

In these respects we can observe the "I" as "1" provides the foundation for measurement as a summation into unity. In simpler terms, when we observe "1" quantitatively we observe the summation of both space and number. In a simultaneous respect when we observe "I", we observe qualitatively the summation of not just experience but phenomena that both form and constituent the nature of the observation of "I" itself.

In these respects both "1" and "I" form the nature of the "axiom" as subjective awareness through the "I" and objective awareness through the "1". It may not only be implied, but argued as the most probable logical scenario, that what we understand of the "axiom" is strictly the manifestation of dimensions as observation. These dimensions, in turn are determined by their directional nature in which observation is merely a form of projection of space through space as space.


When we summate a phenomena through the axioms, as "1/I", what we observe is a totality of phenomena that is directed into a unity through summation as totality in which both "1" and "I" are intradimensional in nature...in simpler terms all phenomena are a biproduct of "1" and "I" reflecting into themselves which all further phenomena simply being extensions of this "1/I" dualism. This dualism of "1/I" is unified under a third dimension as the "axiom" itself, or "observation". In these respects the axioms takes on a nature of 1 as 3 and 3 as 1.

In these regards what we understand of as unity, is merely a process of intradimensional mirroring in which all phenomena are directed into themselves as a extensions of eachother with the "mirroring" process (or a process of reflection as it may be called), being a binding median in itself. The mirroring process, through "1" and "I', provides the foundation of all being through symmetry as merely being the direction of space in which one projection of space mirrors another projective of space through their direction alone. In simpler terms, when space is directed as dimension it further mirrors those directions to form a structure in which it can project back into itself.

For example a 1d point manifests another 1d point, through which it directs itself back into itself, as an extension of itself ad-infinitum. This mirroring back into itself, in turn results in further points ad-finitum that extending into eachother as 1 through infinity, in which the mirroring process observes only 1 considering the infinite mirroring eliminates any space for change...or absense of absence due to an infinite number of 1's through 1 as 1.

A mirrors B and in turn both A and B exist as extensions of the other through the inherent symmetry of the mirror effect...which in itself is symmetry itself as "direction of projection. As extensions of eachother we can observe that the median which unites them is not only a mirroring function, but also the form of A and B as having an inherent symmetry. In these respects when we understand of symmetry is merely an extension from a centerpoint in which "1" and "I" are bound through a literal "point" from which both "limit as boundaries" and "no limit as possible boundaries" exist. Symmetry in these regards exists as the mirror of a center point from which all things originate and all things return while being grounded in a an absence of dimension through the point as "center" itself. In simpler terms the 1d point observes the origin of limit as direction while observes all possible dimensions through its "no-limit" nature as "center".

Therefore what we understand of as "unity" is fundamentally the observation of the origin as both literally and figuratively the "point" in itself.

In these respects what we understand of "multiplicity" is merely the approximation of unity by observe reflective points connected through
"imaginary" or "negative dimensional" lines. In simpler terms we observe the connecting of mirroring phenomena by "connecting the points through imaginary lines" which the point in itself being the causal element from which all phenomena both extend from and through and the line merely being the observation of the "limits of unity" synonmous to "approximation as randomness".

Unity, under these premises, is "causality" through a mirror effect as cause extending itself through "effect" as cause in itself. Multiplicity, in a separate respect, is founded through the very same linear connections as change being the "observation of relation through connection". In simpler terms, what we understand of connection implies a seperation, through a approximation, that is conducive to change. This is considering that the observation of connections is the observation of "unit", rather than "unit", that in itself is conducive to a "part" or "particulate" that must continue in relations in order to exist.

The problem occurs in the respect that these "imaginary" lines, as being "imaged", extend from the point of observation (ourselves as both "I" and "1") and become dimensional entities in themselves that observe "relation".

Again in simpler terms, we observe the relation of "unity" through the "relation of units" that are bound through linear dimensions. Considering this act of observation, in itself, is a form of measurement multiplicity takes on a dual "extradimensional" nature through observing relations as 1d lines that must continual project past their origins in order to relate to further "relations"...which in themselves are composed of 1d lines.

In these respects what we understand of multiplicity is observing the extradimensional nature of a reality in which a unit-particulate must extend past its origins to further unit-particulate...otherwise the unit-particulate ceases to exist. Considering the 1d linear nature, through which we measure and observe reality, must "relate" the seperation occurs through observing a complete absence of dimension or 0 dimensionality. Relation, is merely the observation of the relation of "1" through the observation of absent dimensionality as "0".

Multiplicity is seperation through an complete absence of dimension, in which what exists must move towards itself...much in the same manner an infinite linear extradimensional space must fold upon itself in order to exist in a 0d space in which it can move quite literally nowhere. Measurement, as an extension of "1" and "I" takes on a role of multiplying/dividing through a process of "halving" which in itself is conducive to a dualism as the result of "1" mirroring itself also as "2" and "I" mirroring itself as "we". This process of division/multiplication observe through observing "1" from a perspective of 0 in which change exists as the limit of unity through unit-particulate relations.


Unity can be summated as observing the intradimensional nature of a phenomena as an extension of the "1/I" while multiplicity can be observed as the extradimensional nature of a phenomena as relations through seperation as absence of dimension or 0d.

In these respects what we understand of the dimensions that form both subjective and objective phenomena originate in dimension as direction through projection with projection itself being "space" as a boundary. Multiplicity, as a limit to unity, in these regards is strictly the limit of one's ability to project and in itself is the limit of observation as an absence of observation. Change in observation can strictly be observed as the boundaries in which we are unable to self-reflect as a unified whole and must project into an absence of dimension in order to form ourselves.

In simpler everday terms, our ability to form ourselves through adversity, is us merely observing ourselves for everything we were, are and will be.


Separation exists, but it's illusory because I cannot find the source of I only in what I reflect as my mirror image. SAME NO ONE looking at itself as imaged, appearing as an image of the imagless.

We're all the same one reflecting our personal view points through the lens of our unique perception, so each opinion is going to differ from another opinion, but at the end of the day it's all the same one action dreaming difference where there is none.

This knowledge known by no one is the end of all physiological human suffering.

Y/our original true nature / THE natural self is always working silently behind the scene aka the ego guiding you back to your true home which you have never left, because you cannot leave what you never entered. You are this ONE.

[Dontaskme]

Great reply written in blue, did you write this yourself Eodnhoj7 ?...thanks for posting it..it's amazing clarity.

___________

I think the best quote ever quoted was.....

The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.

[Eodnhoj7]

Great reply written in blue, did you write this yourself Eodnhoj7 ?...thanks for posting it..it's amazing clarity.

I am glad it was clear for you, most of the time people say otherwise. That oftentimes puts me in place where I have to understand another's perspective beyond my own and address "my" argument from "their" perspective. It helps with the discipline and art of "reflection", so there is only so much I can complain. We are all "one" in many respects, so I have learned over the years to view the lack of understanding of other's as extensions of my own understanding; in these respects I feel intellectually and emotionally responsible for their lack of understanding.

I have been coming to the conclusion over the past couple months, with a greater degree of clarity, that we are our brother's keepers whether we want that to be the case or not.

It as if I am talking to myself, so when I am "severe" with those who disagree with me, I am really being severe with myself...hence a practical spiritual understanding of the golden mean as a process of reflection further applies and gives weight to such situations. I can be as easy and as hard as I want on other's as long as I understand I pay the price...in these respects "reason" gives us a deep degree of freedom especially from the implication that we may in fact may be immortal beings through the one creator.

Heaven and hell both give off a degree of beauty as an expression of this freedom to form the measurements which measure us.


In regards to your claim it's original, however considering all ideas have been observed in one form or another, originality often equates to self-discovery. Many authors already address this issues from varying perspective with respectively different premises as axioms.

...I am writing a thesis, as part of an application process for a master's, and I have to not only address such questions that we are discussing but view them from various angles. This is considering that while the premise of measurement will be "space as number", these premises reflect further into logic, science, religion, psychology, etc.

Considering the subjects discussed on this thread are not taught in modern philosophy, in any real deep degree that unifies us ... as of yet, the whole process I am undertaking it pretty much an act of will and belief against the modern abyss we call education. I will succeed, and if I don't another will take my place...I don't really care about the odds...statistics always bored me.

___________

I think the best quote ever quoted was.....

The test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in mind at the same time and still retain the ability to function.

If I can extend that quote from what I have learned: "There is a degree of truth in everything. All lies are but half truths and all truths but half-lies. The question of being qua being is not one of what it is not, but rather what is, what is not and what maybe."

[Dontaskme]

I am glad it was clear for you, most of the time people say otherwise.

Probably because they don't fully understand it that's all. Not that it's not clear, because it is, because I understand it. We can only resonate with our own personal experiences.
We cannot understand what has not yet been our experience, that would be like me trying to understand algebra, I can't grasp it because I've not deeply studied it enough yet.

That oftentimes puts me in place where I have to understand another's perspective beyond my own and address "my" argument from "their" perspective. It helps with the discipline and art of "reflection", so there is only so much I can complain. We are all "one" in many respects, so I have learned over the years to view the lack of understanding of other's as extensions of my own understanding; in these respects I feel intellectually and emotionally responsible for their lack of understanding.

I have been coming to the conclusion over the past couple months, with a greater degree of clarity, that we are our brother's keepers whether we want that to be the case or not.

It as if I am talking to myself, so when I am "severe" with those who disagree with me, I am really being severe with myself...hence a practical spiritual understanding of the golden mean as a process of reflection further applies and gives weight to such situations. I can be as easy and as hard as I want on other's as long as I understand I pay the price...in these respects "reason" gives us a deep degree of freedom especially from the implication that we may in fact may be immortal beings through the one creator.

Heaven and hell both give off a degree of beauty as an expression of this freedom to form the measurements which measure us.


In regards to your claim it's original, however considering all ideas have been observed in one form or another, originality often equates to self-discovery. Many authors already address this issues from varying perspective with respectively different premises as axioms.

...I am writing a thesis, as part of an application process for a master's, and I have to not only address such questions that we are discussing but view them from various angles. This is considering that while the premise of measurement will be "space as number", these premises reflect further into logic, science, religion, psychology, etc.

Considering the subjects discussed on this thread are not taught in modern philosophy, in any real deep degree that unifies us ... as of yet, the whole process I am undertaking it pretty much an act of will and belief against the modern abyss we call education. I will succeed, and if I don't another will take my place...I don't really care about the odds...statistics always bored me.

Very intelligently written,and I support your ideas 100%

If I can extend that quote from what I have learned: "There is a degree of truth in everything. All lies are but half truths and all truths but half-lies. The question of being qua being is not one of what it is not, but rather what is, what is not and what maybe."

Absolutely love this...and because I think it's that good, I've just had to post this bit on another forum, thanks for sharing your clarity.

[GreatandWiseTrixie]

Those who believe they exist as a separate ''me'' are living a lie.
There is no person or thing living life.

And that's the only truth there is, the truth that there is no truth.

Nope you need to rethink your ideas.

A person, or life, is a collection of data, a data set.

You have no idea if solipism is not real, and you have no idea if reincarnation is real. Maybe reincarnation is real, and solipism is false, but that some people are p-zombies, maybe only some humans are sentient but not all.

Thus, you are not the notsentient humans, their inner lives do not exist at any point in time, you do not have access to their data sets, because you are not connected via reincarnation.

[surreptitious57]

There is only NOW

What happens to the NOW that is no longer NOW. NOW might be eternal and all that is experienced but each NOW only exists
for an infintesimal period of time before being replaced by another NOW and the process is endlessly repeated for all of time