This is the channel for the discussion of metaphysical and parapsychological subjects. Please keep discussion of these topics to this channel and out of the rest of the server.
Keep in mind, consciousness here is defined as a multisensory experience that includes a sense of "I exist"
12:03 AM
There is no experience in deep sleep
12:03 AM
The body/mind still functions, but consciousness is "at rest"
12:03 AM
or "in its potential state"
12:04 AM
Remind me what epistemological means?
12:05 AM
Because I don't know that I do
12:05 AM
Btw "classical" non-dual teachings do say that consciousness is ever present, even in deep sleep and possibly death
12:06 AM
My teacher uses the words consciousness and experience (or "knowing") interchangeably, and at a minimum we can say that if we do have an experience in deep sleep, we don't remember it
12:09 AM
It's really sort of tangential. It's not really important if there is consciousness in deep sleep or not, because what we're looking for (and what's available) is happiness in waking life
12:09 AM
As far as knowing goes, we can't know that there is an experience in deep sleep that we forget about later, so no reason to have a belief about it
12:10 AM
Do you? You just infer it from memories about the past
Shake, you seem to be slipping into a modality of "this is what YOU experience" while at the same time saying that "I am not able to know what it is that you experience; I can only know my own experiences"
Felix, again, this is a non-dual teaching that states both are equally valid perspectives: We're a body/mind organism living in a spacetime universe, and we're an experience arising in consciousness. Although all we can really know is the second half
12:16 AM
slipping into a modality of "this is what YOU experience"
Yeah it's called a description ;P a concept
12:16 AM
Remind me what Boltzmann brain is?
12:17 AM
I think it's plenty coherent. Our experience can be validly described by both models
12:18 AM
The point is we can't know if the world is independently real, but we can know that we're having this experience right here, right now
This description says if there is something "beyond" our sensory experience, we can't know it. For all intents and purposes, the experience feels like that of a human being in an objective world, but all we know is that the experience "arises" in our consciousness, meaning our awareness and our sense of existence
12:24 AM
Let me also add that this framework is not intended as a philosophy. This is sort of the "metaphysical" backbone to a description of what happiness in waking life is, and why it's available
I know this seems to be unhelpful, but again none of these are intended as "truths". It's meant for us to play around with concepts like, "can I know that there is an external world? Can I know that the past and future are real, just because this present moment is real?" and presumably these verbal concepts will translate into an experience that's conducive for removing our psychological resistance to circumstance
And if it's not a truth; just a thinking exercise then why share it in the way that you're saying it?
By using absolute statements and then refuting any argument with a statement like oh it's not really all that serious as you're making it out to be. It makes me wonder why even bother opening the floor to discussion.
I'm really trying my best to add disclaimers anywhere I can. The full disclaimer usually offered goes like this: "These are just concepts, all you can know is that you're conscious, but even that is just a concept"
This is why it feels preachy. Preachy from my definition as when a person (a pastor) is speaking from a podium and expecting the congregation to just go along with everything that's being said.
Then, if a congregation member steps up the preacher just offers a dismissive phrase and moves on with the sermon.
It's incredibly frusterating and my kneejerk reactions to your statements are why I haven't yet responded to the conversation we were having in dms.
Heh wow all I can say is I'm sort of surprised it comes across as "preachy", although I think even in pastor/congregation situations, there is usually an understanding that the sermon is to some extent conceptual
12:44 AM
I also feel like the only thing that I'm "dismissive" of is the absoluteness of my own descriptions lol? I don't think I've really disagreed with either of you
12:46 AM
I guess I still have trouble understanding what you disagree with, what you think is incoherent about it
12:47 AM
I don't know how much clearer I can say it. Anything "beyond the veil" can only be inferred. The best we can "know" is that we're conscious of this present moment experience, anything else is just our conceptualization of the experience
Has anyone here read any legitimate phenomenology lol? May I recommend Thomas Nagel and Merleau-Ponty; they help elaborate on how to avert the epistemological/phenomenological logical pitfalls you’re falling into.
also felix invited me here. Hewwo
Okay so it says the only thing we can know is the present moment experience, but that the experience consistently presents as one of cause and effect, the experience of a human body/mind subject in an objective world. Classically, a spiritual seeker first recognizes that only consciousness is ultimately knowable, but then an integration needs to happen because the experience continues to present as that of a person living in a spacetime universe
12:58 AM
It doesn't have to be inferred. You can close your eyes right now (or not) and be aware of the present moment, which includes the sense that you exist. In deep meditation, all other components of the experience fall away. In deep sleep (as far as we know), even that falls away
1:01 AM
Everything else, like "the world really exists" is at best inferred, at worst a belief
1:01 AM
The purpose of this framework is to uproot a certain belief that is described as causing all of our psychological unhappiness
The belief that we are an independent "doer" entity that's separate from and uninfluenced by life. The belief that we could and should have acted differently in the past, so that means we're a failure; the belief that others could and should have acted differently in the past, and so we have to hate them; and the belief that future circumstance needs to turn out pleasant in order for us to be complete, because pain subtracts from who we are.
1:06 AM
The framework describes that when these beliefs fall away, the resulting attitude of personal doership and attachment to outcomes falls away, and what remains is unbroken peace of mind regardless of (physical or emotional) pleasure or pain in the present moment.
1:08 AM
And that this peace of mind is what spiritual seeking eventually turns to once it becomes clear that this is the sustainable happiness that's available
1:12 AM
Life meaning that which created us when the sperm and egg came together to design our genetic blueprint, and that which has grown, shaped, conditioned and lived us in every moment since. That which makes our hair grow, our lungs breathe, our digestive system function, thinks through us, speaks through us, acts through us
1:13 AM
Lol I mean sure. I'm not the one who insists that concepts need to be truths!
The criticism was: "According to the framework, everything is inferred, so therefore we should not form concepts about our experience at all." Which is one valid way of coming to an understanding of our unhappiness, but it's a lot easier when there are some concepts presented along the way, not to hold as beliefs but as "thought experiments", which I insist is all I'm trying to do here
1:19 AM
The framework essentially says that there are two valid perspectives we can have about our life experience, but in order for us to recognize what it is that the other perspective points to, that perspective has to be described with concepts, such as "life created, shaped, grew, conditioned and lived us in each moment"
1:19 AM
It's not any more "true" than "we are human subjects in an objective world", but it's not any less true, either
1:21 AM
The "goal" is really the falling away of all beliefs, and all these concepts are just meant to aid with that. "Consider that life is in some ways no different from a dream" etc
1:27 AM
Belief: "I have always acted of my own volition." Thought experiment: "You've been created, conditioned and lived by life." Possible outcomes: 1)"Bullshit, I always act of my own volition." 2) "Wow, I guess volition is an illusion. I'm a mechanical instrument functioning in the only way possible." 3) "I recognize that all of my actions are determined by factors outside of my control, and I feel free to do whatever I choose in each moment."(edited)
1:27 AM
1) is the belief before becoming interested in spiritual teachings, 2) is a placeholder belief installed by spiritual teachings in order to bring about 3), which is the absence of beliefs
1:28 AM
I replaced "but" with "and"
1:34 AM
It's a recognition that we live in a universe that is subject to cause and effect, meaning that our actions are also the result of cause and effect, the result of the laws of physics. As long as we don't discount the feeling of free will that's always part of our experience, it's not a "belief" that's clearly at odds with the universe as we know it (or infer it, lol). But even while we hold onto it as a "placeholder belief", it causes much less psychological resistance than the belief in complete, independent volition(edited)
1:36 AM
lol phew wipes sweat off brow
1:38 AM
Just cause I haven't whipped 'em out yet today, the framework says that our psychological attitude of personal doership manifests essentially in five ways: 1. guilt and shame, 2. blame and hatred, 3. pride and arrogance, 4. worries & anxiety, 5. expectations & attachment to outcomes
1:39 AM
In short, "I'm a failure, I hate you, and if circumstance is pain rather than pleasure, I'm incomplete and cannot be happy"
1:40 AM
Based on the belief that life could and should have unfolded differently than the laws of physics caused it to(edited)
1:43 AM
Basically! Although it says "you can't help but worry as long you understand yourself as separate from life"
1:43 AM
It's just a description, not an instruction of how to "get there"
1:44 AM
It says "after an understanding sinks in, based on new conditioning delivered by life, eventually the attitude that gets in the way of peace of mind falls away"
1:46 AM
It can't be an instruction because the whole point is to bring about a recognition (or at least enable the perspective) that in each moment, life moves us, brings about new circumstance, new conditioning that changes our functional design, etc
1
