Tuesday, November 19, 2013

Awakening to Fictional Realities...






I received many email questions regarding my previous post Your Fictional New World Order (with thanks to disinfo.com for reposting) and so I would like to further elucidate points made in that post.

A fictional reality is something that is not factual, but engaged with as if it were an undeniable fact and that, thereby, sculpts facts to fit the fiction. 

Factual things are constructed to support fictional realities and entire lives unfold almost entirely through fictions. A need for food is a bodily fact, but grocery stores and restaurants are fictional realities ingeniously constructed to manage factual hunger in fictional ways that we find more satisfying and pleasurable. Hunger is a fact. The many ways we assuage hunger is based on fiction. Starving Ethiopians have no fictional realities regarding hunger.

To live in a fictional reality requires the “willing suspension of disbelief.”

If suspension of disbelief were not possible, fictions such as society, career, marriage, money, government, war, love, truth, etc, etc, etc, on and on ad nauseam, would not be possible. Entire technologies have been invented to support fictions that require the use of factual objects to make the fictional reality a fact. A house, made of physical materials, is a fact, but a “home” is entirely fictional, as are all the factual objects we perpetually stuff into a house to support the fictional reality of a “home.”

However, all fictional realities begin with the most complex fiction of all, that you are a factual “self,” and from that fiction all subsequent fictions magically unfold. 

Belief in a fictional world demands belief in the greatest fiction of all…that you have a 'self' and that 'self' is a seriously indisputable fact and not a fictional reality. You can touch a factual body, but you cannot touch a fictional 'self.'  Hence, this demands chronic, daily self-actualizing through fictional realities to maintain and manage the 'self' as factual.

If the self were to finally be recognized as a fiction, all other fictions would crumble of the weight of their own insignificance, since it was the fictional ‘self’ from which all other fictions were invented. A fictional ‘self’ must constantly be “actualized” to maintain and manage it as an actual fact. The fictional reality of a ‘society’ provides a menu of fictional self-actualizing avenues and paths. A fictional ‘self’ that can no longer be actualized through the fictional realities available through the social menu of fictions becomes a burden to the fictional "society." If the fictional self defies or negates the available menu of self-actualizing fictions, it must be silenced or made to conform (hence, the Snowden affair). The killing spree of Charles Manson was based on fictional realities. But then, so was the military occupation and bombing of Iraq.

As a psychotherapist (fiction), my job is to assist people in managing their personal fictions, because they believe, above and beyond all other fictions, that the 'self' they identify with is factual and not fictional. If they did not believe the “self” a fact, I would be out of work. If I were to emphasize the exact nature of their fictional realities I would also be out of work. Hence, I (a fiction) work delicately with the fragile fictional realities of the fictional selves I meet with, because I recognize the lack of free-will in those attached to the fictional realities of a fictional self. Essentially, in one way or another, we are all victimized by the very fictions we require be factual and this includes the fictional 'self.'

Frequently, there are certain facts that cause fictions to become impossible to maintain. There have been reports of fictional selves who commit suicide because they lost all their fictional "money" in a fictional reality called the “stock market.” In addition, if a fictional self becomes suddenly inflicted with a factually debilitating disease or severe physical disability, then numerous fictional realities may need to be discarded and this is often  highly traumatic for a fictional self, thereby, requiring other fictions through which to actualize it “self” as a fact. Fictional “careers” can be terminated instantly, due to sudden alterations in other fictional realities (i.e. fictional “economy”). Fictionally paired units, called “marriages” could be rent asunder for various reasons, subsequently, taking down with it all the fictional appendages necessary to maintain the fictional reality of “marriage” and “family” that is the cohesive, but purely fictional, micro-tapestry of a fictional macro “society.” Egocentrica mammalians have grave difficulty adapting to changes in fictional realities that become necessary due to changes in factual realities. This is apparent in the numerous ways egocentrica mammalians seek to conserve their fictional “way of life.”

“Society” is an expansive fiction containing myriad other intricately interlocking fictions from which fictional selves function through fictional purposes. It has fictional rules and boundaries that fictional selves agree are fact. The “United States of America” is a fictional reality. It is a fiction that fictional selves agree on as fact, with fictional boundaries, as well as fictional “armies” (factually large groups of fictional selves with factual weapons) and fictional “governments” for which to protect those boundaries. Hence, fictional selves proclaim all people on this side of the fictional boundary “citizens” and those on that side “aliens.” Essentially, if there were no fictional boundaries on a factual planet, there could be no wars. If I cannot locate the enemy within fictional borders, I might accidentally bomb those who agree with my fictional reality and that would suck.

“Terrorism” has become one the most incredible fictional realities ever devised by human egocentrica mammalia. Since there are no fictional borders anyone can be considered a terrorist, requiring ever more abundant fictional "laws" serving to identify a fictional terroroist. This makes it that much easier to control everyone through the predominant fictional reality of fighting fictional "terrorism."

Anything created to support a fiction, must itself be fictional (even though it may have factual properties) and, hence, we exist in a complex spinning vortex of contradictory fictions. Many fictional “citizens” fear their fictional “boundaries” may dissolve and this would require defining their fictional selves in new ways. A fictional “self” could not consider itself as a fictional “American” if the fictional boundaries on a map were not believed, protected and reinforced by fictional authorities with fictional laws and factual guns. A “war” is also completely fictional and it requires that boundaries between fictional “states” be agreed upon by fictional “citizens” existing within those borders.

Egocentrica Mammalians are more concerned with conserving their fictional realities, culminating in fictitious “lifestyles,” then with conserving their factual resources. The “American way of life” is entirely fictional and is a tenuous and fragile weaving together of fictional values and moralities that often require fictional selves endure factual death to protect.

“Christianity” is a fictional story used as a foundation to construct fictional laws for which to maintain order and preserve boundaries. This is why fictional selves proclaim that we are a “Christian nation,” totally forgetting that a “nation” is as fictional as the “God” who blesses our bombs, but not the bombs of that other fictional “nation” over there. The fiction of an omnipotent being in the sky, demanding that you not covet your neighbor’s wife, was merely a necessary fiction to ensure the sanctity of fictional marriages, which serves to bind a fictional “society” together. "Thou shalt not steal" serves to protect the property that we amass to reinforce our fictional realities.

However, currently we are observing a gradual dissolution of fictional realities. A collective awakening to fictional realities is picking up steam. 

Unfortunately, this is resulting in a push by those fictional “selves” who strongly desire to conserve their specific fictional realities. As the fictions that bind a fictional “society” together begin to lose their relevance, chaos ensues because a fictional ‘self’ no longer has any fooking idea what its fictional purpose is, because any purpose a fictional self would have must be, subsequently, fictional and provided only within the fictional “boundaries” that make up the fictional “society” in which it resides.

In many places fictional governments have fallen and new fictional governments take control and perpetuate alternative fictions with fictional laws. Those who disagree with the new fictional laws, invented to maintain and impose order on the fictional selves in a particular fictional society, then seek to overturn that fictional government so as to impose their own fictions as fact. This has been a never-ending theme of fictional selves existing within fictional boundaries and may continue on ad infinitum.

It does appear that conserving fictions is egocentrica mammalias sole purpose for existing and most of the suffering apparent in the world today is related to protecting fictional realities. 

In fact, recall that the fiction of “banks,” invented to manage large sums of fictional “money,” required billions of fictional “dollars,” collected from the fictional “taxes” of fictional selves existing within fictional boundaries, or “society, in order to preserve the fiction of “banking,” considered the cornerstone of a fictional “economy,” which tends to make some fictional selves enjoy the comfort of fictional “wealth,” while others exist in fictional “poverty.”

Nevertheless, the United States was created, by a bunch of fictional selves writing a fictional “constitution” (on a factual piece of parchment) to allow for numerous different fictional realities to exist in some form of peace and harmony. This revered fictional “constitution” made the bold claim that all fictional selves had the right to a factual life with fictional “liberty” and the factual pursuit of fictional “happiness.” The idea was to allow people to have the freedom to invent their own fictional realities without the need to conform to the fictional “nations” fictional “way of life” as ordained by a fictional “dictator” or “king.”

However, living in a fictional “society” in which all fictional realities are equal was very problematic, because fictional selves have a tendency to demand their fictional reality be seen as factual truth and will factually kill non-believers of that predominant fiction. Yet, this problem was easily solved through a fictional system referred to as “capitalism.”

Capitalism is a fiction that claims that the chief purpose of a fictional self is to generate as much fictional “money,” or fictional “wealth,” as possible and, hence, those fictional selves with the most fictional “wealth” have the fictional power to direct the fictional society. Thusly, the fiction of capitalism trumped all other fictional realities and this was seen as advantageous with regard to the horrors endured through centuries of fictional “religions.”

With the fiction of “capitalism” (actually derived from and supported by the fiction of Christianity”) egocentrica mammalians now had a serious fictional purpose, which serves as cohesive glue for fictional “citizens” and maintains and manages the functioning of those fictional selves in a fictional society. This seemed to be the purpose of the fictional constitution, in which all fictional realities could coexist harmoniously and you could worship any fictional “God” you wanted as long as the basic conduct of your life conformed to the fiction of capitalism, or fictional “wealth” creation, no matter which part you played, titan of industry or welfare queen.

Yet, alas, it is the fate of all fictions to have the curtain pulled back, seeing it as nothing more than a naked fiction, with no factual properties whatsoever and often only serving to hide the facts. The problem is that the fictional “self” has very few options left for ordering its fictional “societies” because, as can be seen throughout history, when one fictional reality is destroyed the fictional reality that takes its place is often as fictionally absurd as the one that ended (as can be seen by the dictatorial and oppressive presence the fiction of “capitalism” is now evolving into).

Is there a factual reality that fictions cover up? Is egocentrica mammalia so frightened of the factual reality that he must construct fictional realities to hide from fact? Is egocentrica mammalia cursed with the inability to SEE fact and must only see his conjured up fictions?

Many human egocentrica mammalians continue to perpetuate the belief that there is a better fictional reality that fictional selves can one day realize if we only destroy the current fictional reality that is much worse than the better fictional reality

However, there are fictional selves out there that have developed the unique capacity to separate fact from fiction and they have started with the “self,” in the recognition that there is no need to go any further than that fictional reality.


Artwork by Mark Ryden



50 comments:

  1. I'm trying to clarify your ideas. In the few articles that I've read, it seems that you are saying that all that happens is the result of prior causes and for an idea of self to exist, one must have an idea of free will. Because all that happens is inevitable from prior causes, free will doesn't exist, and so self doesn't exist. Did I get that right?

    What you are saying about fictional things seems analogous to what I was saying about causality and other assumptions not being inherent in physical phenomena. Assumptions are used to organize that physical phenomena in a way that makes sense similar to the way your fictional realities are a way of organizing factual realities. The difference would be that you have more certainty (so you think) that your experience represents an external factual reality, which could then be organized into fictional realities. It could be that these two methods of organization have the same goal - to bolster the ego. I think we would both agree that specific organizations of, let's call it, the facts are unique to the individual and not necessarily objectively there.

    I completely agree with the idea of fictional realities inasmuch as they don't have to be there, but the way people organize the facts in their lives is the result of what is important to them with varying numbers of links in the chain (for example, having fictional agencies to regulate fictional banks to keep a fictional monetary system in check to promote fictional security to promote happiness - is happiness fictional?). Regardless of whether anyone has any say in what is important to him, what's important is still important. Why does free will even matter?

    Wouldn't hunger be a fictional reality if its purpose is to perpetuate a fictional self? I would say that the experience of hunger is reality, regardless of whether you have my view of a perception-dependent reality or your view of an objective reality, but viewing the experience of hunger in a way that necessitates eating is doing so in a way that implies a self and is thus fictional. I'm guessing you would say that hunger is a factual reality to perpetuate a factual body, but do you really believe that you have no choice but to feed yourself? Clearly, you're eating, so I see two possibilities here. The first possibility is that you are saying that there is no intentional action by you in order to eat (regardless of whether that intentional action was influenced by prior causes). In other words, you are essentially observing "your" hands grab food and put it in "your" mouth but have no in-the-moment say in whether that happens. The second possibility is that you're implicitly telling us that you are still under the spell of self so you "choose" to feed yourself. So which is it?

    ReplyDelete
  2. Hunger is a factual reality of a physical body. Ways to assuage hunger through various social constructs are fictional and based on fictional preferences of a fictional self. The lion has no fictional self and its preferences are based on a purely factual carnivorous nature. It devours the antelope it can most easily take down and has no other preferences other than that.

    Thanks!
    Mike

    ReplyDelete
  3. Mike,

    It's your blog and you can do whatever you want, but you seem to be very closed to discussion about what you're writing unless the commenter completely agrees with you. You've ignored my questions and main points in almost every comment I've made here and you've generally just restated the points you already made in the articles that I was commenting on.

    I'm not asking you about lions. I'm asking you, given the views you've outlined, why you feed yourself, because that seems pretty contradictory to those views. I offered two possibilities that might explain the apparent contradiction between your views and the fact that you are alive, either of which are perfectly fine and won't make you look bad. If the explanation is something else, what is it?

    I'm also asking you whether I understand your views. That understanding can be found in the first paragraph of my last post.

    Also, you have no idea what a lion is thinking because you've never been a lion.

    ReplyDelete
  4. You eat to maintain a body through which the self identifies. The body is factual, the self is fictional and based on social fictions. Indeed, because the fiction of self is reliant on a factual body, if the body dies, so does the self.

    Observe behaviors in nature and it becomes apparent that instinct rules and there is no self-consciousness.

    Thanks,
    Mike

    ReplyDelete
  5. I'm not asking about a generalized "you" who "eat[s] to maintain a body." I'm asking about Mike S. Are you trying to maintain a fictional self or do you believe that your body feeds itself despite the views of your consciousness?

    ReplyDelete
  6. Of course. However, I don't do much maintenance these days. Simply let it do what it's programmed to do. When you get to the point of realizing there is no free-will, then there's not a whole lot of maintaining necessary. You just do what you do.

    Thanks!
    Mike

    ReplyDelete
  7. So, you are saying that, to the extent that you have transcended the fictional self, you are simply observing life happen but do not perceive that you are making decisions?

    Just so we're clear, when I say that you perceive that you're not making decisions, I'm not talking about you having knowledge that your actions are determined by prior causes so that your decisions are not really "your" decisions. I'm talking about a feeling of decision in the moment. For example, when you eat something, do you not think to yourself, "I'm going to eat this food now"? So it just sort of happens?

    ReplyDelete
  8. I never stated that I have "transcended" the fictional self, but merely that I recognize that it is fictional. "Transcendence" is itself fictional. Another fiction woven from a fictional self. Reality is chock full of fictions constructed by the fictional self.

    Of course I recognize an "I-me" engaging in the process of eating. But I recognize the "I-me" as fictional and not factual as is the body. There is a body that requires food and a host of neuro-circuits claim this body as "I-me," but those neuro-circuits present electro-chemical impulses that provide a delusional sense of an "I-me" that has a free-will to make choice not entirely influenced by external reality which includes the body. This is fictional.

    "You" do not exist, regardless of how strenuously attempt to prove "you" are there. You are nothing more than a mechanistic series of brain processes that you had no free-will in constructing.

    Thanks!
    Mike

    ReplyDelete
  9. When I said that you transcended the fictional self, I meant that you fully recognize yourself as fictional and act accordingly. "Transcend" is just a word and only has the meaning you give it.

    I'm still seeing a contradiction in what you're saying. If you truly saw "you" as fictional, there would be no reason to perpetuate the existence of the body. At best, what you're seeing is an approximation of yourself as fictional, perhaps similar to the way we can approximate the idea of infinity, but can't truly conceive of it. If you you truly saw "yourself" as fictional, the body would have to operate independently in order for you to stay alive.

    Is desire fictional? Is happiness fictional?

    ReplyDelete
  10. I sense you may be perceiving the posts here as much more advanced in this process than I actually am. This blog actually serves as a "logbook," chronicling various ideas as they arise, and spans approx 6yrs.

    I have no authority in this and I stake no claim as such. It all arose from recognizing an absence of free-will and unfolded from that.

    "If you you truly saw "yourself" as fictional, the body would have to operate independently in order for you to stay alive."

    I think this is evident in the natural order...
    Mike

    ReplyDelete
  11. "I think this is evident in the natural order..."

    I'm not sure that we're on the same page about what it means for the body to operate independently. Even if prior causes are influencing my consciousness, it appears to me that I must have the thought, even if it is a non-conceptual thought, i.e., a desire translated directly into action, to instruct my body to eat in order to actually eat. If you are claiming that the body is able to act completely without "you" giving it instruction to do so, I have no evidence that that's impossible, however, it sounds pretty wild. I've heard similar accounts of this so maybe it is possible. I'm not sure what there is for consciousness to do if things like this are operating outside of it.

    Do you believe that consciousness never affects the external world, but only appears to, regardless of ones identification with a fictional self? If so, how could that be possible? Doesn't the fact that the thought of "I'm going to ________" precedes the action of ________ indicate that consciousness does affect the external world (even if the external world first affected consciousness)?

    ReplyDelete
  12. “I'm not asking you about lions.“

    hahahahaha ... lol this cracked me up for some reason. I find the conversation btwn you two hilarious.

    Abe.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Hunger impulse are experienced by a body and the body seeks food. Happens with lions, tigers and three-toed tree sloths. Egocentrica is just as victim to natural impulses. Only difference is, he has 'preferences' through which he identifies,based on fictional realities, that do not reflect nature or natural impulses, but do reflect his need to actualize and make himself 'real.' He need not resign himself to merely eating to assuage hunger. Egocentrica dines in fictional splendor....

    The concept "consciousness" merely reflects the aggregate of impulses firing off in the brain, entirely caused by electro-chemical interactions. Shut off the brain and consciousness is a done deal. Proving that it is brain produced and not created by some Great Spirit in the Sky (not implying you believe this, but more for the spiritualists out there who constantly pound my in-box with hocus pocus woowoo mythological nonsense).

    Of course, you state "I am going to..." It's your brain located in the cranium you assume ownership over. "Self" is all about location and nothing to do with agency (since there's no free-will "I" never really does anything).

    To use a fav quote (mangled to suit my tastes) 'you're a puppet and the universe (predetermined causal order) has its hand firmly up your arse, moving your head about and flapping your gums, while jerking your body to and fro, all the while allowing you the 'feel' that you're actually doing things.

    But it simply ain't so...

    Thanks!
    Mike

    ReplyDelete
  14. Whats up Johnathan, maybe check out this image: http://phys.org/news186830615.html. I've sent this to mike before, but just have a look at it and read the description. To me it seems to explain the situation regarding free will quite clearly. Model A, of the image is what we generally think/feel is what is happening. 'Conscious Will' leads to or atleast influences our actions/behaviours. But where does this 'conscious will' come from? If you really think about it, what 'causes' conscious will?
    Anyways have a read through that image, if your interested.

    peace.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Sunny,

    I like this F Crick quote: "As Francis Crick said, ‘Dream as we may, reality knocks relentlessly at the door.’ And as a result of the rapid and ongoing progress in neuroscience, the reality that individual behavior is governed by one’s genetic and environmental history is becoming increasingly apparent.”

    Hence, it is causally predetermined and everything done must be done exactly as done, simply because there is no 'doer' with the free-will to choose to do anything. Without free-will there can be no agency and without agency...no 'self.'

    Thanks,
    Mike

    ReplyDelete
  16. Sunny/Mike,

    If we assume that what each of us experiences is true and representative of a world that is independent of our perception of it and that that world has governing laws, a middle school kid could determine that free will doesn't exist. I still see a problem here in that seeing events as links in an infinite chain of causality can't answer the question of how existence (that is, everything that exists and has ever existed)... exists, because although each link in the chain is caused, the chain itself is without cause. To me, this is a pretty big issue.

    The other problem is that objective knowledge of such an external world is impossible. Our ability to gain information about the world is limited to our ability to perceive it and organize it and we have zero knowledge of the effectiveness of our perceptive faculty relative to some potential external world because we've never stepped outside of it and don't have any knowledge of the meaningfulness of our ability to make sense of what we do perceive. To step outside of perception (i.e., experience) would be to not exist from our own [non]perspective. To reverse what Mike said, shut off consciousness and the brain ceases to exist. If we make the assumption that the contents of our experiences are representative of some objective world, we have something to go off of, but that assumption would, itself, not be based in anything objective. I've asked Mike about he is able to overcome this insurmountable obstacle in previous posts and he's pretty much ignored me. Sunny, if you're interested, you can read the comments on the last few posts.

    Sunny, I believe the article you linked is disputing the single reason that any of us ever concluded that an objective world exists and that is in our ability to make predictions about what we will experience when certain other things are experienced earlier in time. As I explained in another post, causality and other organizations of or constructs from experiential phenomena are not inherent in the phenomena themselves. They are assumptions added by the mind in order to make the world "make sense." An example of such an assumption would be "A causes B" after it is observed that B tends to happen right after A happens. If all of this sounds like bullshit, it's because you're unable to put aside the assumption of an objective world and I know how that is. The deal, though, is that the question of one's ability to know truth is of primary importance. Have you ever stopped to wonder if your organization of what you experience, i.e., your mind's thoughts, is of any meaning whatsoever or is at all related to anything? That really is the big fucking question mark.

    Of course, the article you linked doesn't completely show a contradiction in our concept of an external world because it leaves room that we can correctly conclude on causal relationships that don't involve our own will. So the above is just a thought.

    However, none of this is really the point of what I was asking Mike.

    "Of course, you state 'I am going to...'"

    Mike seems to love to using the term "you" when I ask him questions about himself. Mike, honestly it seems like you don't get what I'm talking about so let me try another way. Based on what you've said, it seems like you would say to yourself, "why am I doing this?" every time you eat. Isn't your life or at least any idea of your life that you might have fictional? If so why prolong a fictional life? To me, this is evidence that you don't believe what you say. Have you found some meaning within this fiction?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Perhaps divisions of any kind are the fundamental fiction. You would only feel yourself to be a 'puppet' subject to the universe if you imagined yourself as separate from it and at odds with it (which I think is partly your point, correct me if I'm wrong). You're back to calling people woo woo again! Haha. Fair enough I would't like people continually bombarding me with out-there beliefs. However on the subject of consciousness/awareness you're as much in the dark as to its nature as anyone else, no?

    I agree consciousness comes and goes, but that there may be a 'substratum' of which we are each simultaneously a tiny part of as well as the whole, doesn't seem like an enormous stretch to me.

    Given the inherent and increasingly found weirdness of reality, such notions don't seem like science-fiction or 'hocus pocus' to me... but that's me. You're free to think and feel as you do (well actually 'you' are not, and that's pretty crucial to what you say and I agree with that!).

    I'm guessing you've read Ruthless Truth's 'One Song', probably long ago. I'm new to it (or at least when I first encountered it I didn't read it all), but I found that hugely elucidating as to what's going on here. Though you may differ. Just some thoughts anyway, not trying to convert anyone to anything. I've found though that the more beliefs are discarded (whether deemed 'limiting' or 'aggrandising in a delusive sense') opens things up a lot anyway. I'm wondering if you've found the same?

    Cheers,
    Gabriel

    ReplyDelete
  18. I think there is a risk of me getting rather repetitive in my comments here, so I will just say: You seem to have landed on a perspective that works for you, so fair enough. I'm leaning towards an 'orientation-lessness' in views or paradigms, where I can. If I have a view it is that, as I find it more conducive to happiness and (in my view) more in line with the open-ended nature of what reality is. Find whatever works for you and if people resonate with what you say they will stick around obviously. No need for me to continually (if only occasionally) state other views, people can find them elsewhere. Something has obviously kept me coming back, even if it has just been to sometimes state my perspective and how it is in congruence or dissonance with your own. You are a great writer, and whatever works for you is cool. I sometimes just object to what seems like a quite a strong attachment to partial (and perhaps limiting) views, but then I have my own attachments, no doubt!

    Cheers,
    Gabriel

    ReplyDelete
  19. "To reverse what Mike said, shut off consciousness and the brain ceases to exist."

    That makes no sense. You can't shut off consciousness without shutting off a brain and many brain disorders, including alzheimers, demonstrates that not only is the brain in charge of consciousness, it is in charge off what you are conscious of and what you "think," since you cannot choose to have a thought before you think it. The "I-me" is nothing more than 3lbs of fatty tissue.

    "Mike seems to love to using the term "you" when I ask him questions about himself."

    All brains are the same, just different circuitry...

    Thanks!
    Mike

    ReplyDelete
  20. "However on the subject of consciousness/awareness you're as much in the dark as to its nature as anyone else, no?"

    consciousness is nothing more than the aggregate experience of billions of neuro-chemical impulses firing off in a cranium. Nothing woowoo about...

    Thanks!
    Mike

    ReplyDelete
  21. That's amazing, you've solved the hard problem and one of the biggest mysteries in the world in seventeen words! Now -that's- magic if ever I saw it. I was right, this does get circuitous.

    Wishing you all the best,
    Gabriel

    ReplyDelete
  22. Mike,

    It makes no sense because you’re not listening to what I’m saying.

    Have you ever watched someone or something, whether it was a relative or an insect, die? How did you know when that something lost consciousness? Let’s say it was an insect that you stepped on. Did you know it had lost consciousness because it stopped squirming? Is movement or responsiveness to the outside world indicative of consciousness? If so, is the automatic door at the local Wal-Mart conscious? What if you suddenly lost the ability to move your body but remained alive. It’s unlikely but seemingly possible (Google “total locked-in syndrome”). From the outside, you might appear dead, but internally, your consciousness would be irrefutable.

    The only consciousness that you can ever really know about is your own. Additionally, the entirety of your existence occurred and is occurring within your mind. I’m not saying that there's no world objective world dictating the contents of your mind, only that that world has to come into your mind before you can know about it.

    Once again, you've ignored my questions, which are not about explanations and causality, but your own motivations.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Give it time Gabriel. Neuroscience will soon fill in the blanks. Until then:

    "When I die and they lay me to rest
    Gonna go to the place that's the best
    When I lay me down to die
    Goin' up to the spirit in the sky
    Goin' up to the spirit in the sky
    That's where I'm gonna go when I die
    When I die and they lay me to rest
    Gonna go to the place that's the best"

    ReplyDelete
  24. It's called "dead" Jonathan. When the functioning of the brain shuts off, you are no longer conscious because you are quite simply dead. "Total locked in syndrome" is not dead, because neurons are still firing. When every single solitary circuit shuts down, that's dead. There really is no way around this. If, in fact, consciousness is some strange cosmic force, which I doubt, it is clearly slave to the brain, since the brain directs what you are conscious of and of you're having consciousness in the first place. I always have wondered why all these "pure consciousness" gurus don't revere and worship the brain since, when that shuts off, all the woowoo consciousness in the world don mean spit. Okay, maybe consciousness flies off to outer space to join other consciousnessess's. But it ain't "you" anymore cause "you" were determined by brain processes and that things done dead.

    I apologize for not answering all your queries. However, due to time constraints and work hours I can only cherry pick what hits me in the moment. Maybe if you limit your questions to one or two, a discussion would be easier. But please refrain from stating that my answer ignores the question when, in fact, I have answered. You may disagree, which I always encourage as it builds new circuits, but an answer is an answer.

    Thanks!
    Mike

    Thanks!
    Mike

    ReplyDelete
  25. Erm, nah. It's not koombaya to have an intuitive sense of being the all, nor is it delusive or 'happy clappy' just because you do not sense it, locked as you are into your mind-made assertions, so your characterisation is inaccurate. Your 'circuits' are obviously pretty closed down, despite your pretending to be open. Believe what you want to believe, but I would suggest not becoming a bigot about it, it's exactly what the religious people you are attempting to parody do. You say you have been through many 'perspective changes', hasn't that taught you that the belief is never the actual? Rhetorical question, obviously not.

    Happy trails, dude. I've had my fill of this place.
    Gabriel

    ReplyDelete
  26. I do sense it Gabriel. Read "Recreational swimming the the Primordial Soup" (recent post). What you want is human "consciousness" to be some glorious separate entity from the rest of the predetermined causal order that the natural world is confined to. Does a three-toed tree sloth give a rats patoot about summoning some esoteric "intuition"? Why should it when it is already intuitively connected with a predetermined natural order that requires no intellectual blah, blah blah of 'oneness' and 'universal unity' or "being the all." Just watch it. I eats, sheits, sleeps, fooks and then...dies. What more to concern itself with?

    "You say you have been through many 'perspective changes', hasn't that taught you that the belief is never the actual? "

    Of course it has. Which is why I don't take any of this sheit seriously. I really have absolutely no investment in what anyone thinks about anything I write. I just do not care and eventually, I would imagine, that detachment will end the writing completely. I feel I am getting close to that every day, but it simply does not matter.

    "Your 'circuits' are obviously pretty closed down, despite your pretending to be open."

    Unfortunately, this makes no sense. What you wish to say is that I am closed to what you suggest and that may be true, since I can only go where the circuits take me and that is the same for you. Your circuits engage a discomfort with what mine present and that makes total sense.

    But here's the thing...I look forward to whatever surprising understanding my circuits take me to next, since I have no free-will in what that might be. Hence, I live in the surrender and total abandonment to any perspective and the evolution of the blog demonstrates that. I used to get all jiggy with Deepak Chopra. Thanks god that was many years ago.

    Enjoy your seeking!
    Miike

    ReplyDelete
  27. "Hence, I live in the surrender and total abandonment to any perspective "

    Haha! Ok, whatever you say. Really sounds like it...

    Look, I respect your position, even if you don't respect my lack of fixed position or open-mindedness on the matter. Death may very well be the complete cessation of experience... Maybe. You simply do not know what happens, it's arrogance to assert that you do, pure and simple. I am not defending a position other than that of being open to possibilities that have been presented as real in my own experience (and you are only going by your own experience too, of course).

    I don't believe we are 'people' fundamentally per se (permit me to sound 'far out' on that point), so no, I do not wish to extend 'my' consciousness into some supernatural realm and find the thought quite horrifying, frankly. What we are as individuals is merely a pattern. I wouldn't want that pattern to go on 'forever', that would be unspeakably dull (much as I don't want to engage in this conversation forever, and I'm sure you feel the same).

    I have actually have also known the place you are speaking from (as best I can tell, or, as much as you have any idea where I am coming from), so you're not the only one who can wearily say 'been there, done that, bought the prayer beads/gothic clothing'. I resigned myself to living a short, pointless existence, having occasional momentary pleasures, with a fair smattering of mild suffering and dissatisfaction. Not having any more expectations than this actually brought some degree of peace, but I realised after a time that this was no more than another, 'palliative' and ameliorating belief system. It is better than waiting for some 'far out mystical experience' or whatever you think I am 'seeking' but it was a belief system none the less. I even recognise the somewhat sardonic sense of humour you seem to display from my days of inhabiting that particular belief structure. I thought I was the only person who had 'got real'. Ha! Instead I was engaged in more mind-based 'telling things what they are' rather than experiencing their richness and fullness, which I do enjoy to a much greater degree now. I am under no illusions of being apart from the causal order as a human individual, I have stated on numerous occasions that we are in agreement on the issue of free will.

    Happy surrendering into the meaningless goo of... etc. (I hope you are actually happy btw, and hope you wish others the same. I'm sure you do, no hard feelings)

    Cheers,
    Gabriel

    ReplyDelete
  28. "You simply do not know what happens, it's arrogance to assert that you do, pure and simple."

    So all of science and religion, which asserts "what happens," is arrogant? Isn't the thesis, antithesis, synthesis, part of the search? As the cliche goes, you do not know how electricity works, but you live by it working.

    When I claim abandonment I mean to the circuitry and the possibility that tomorrow my circuits may claim that we are all slaves of the extraterrestrial Annunaki race.

    The point is, with no free-will, it is simply not up to an "I-me" as to what will be the next belief.

    I just roll with it, because it really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things because it is a part of the grand scheme of things.

    Thanks,
    Mike

    ReplyDelete
  29. In the case of death, which is the great Unknown in a field of the Unknowable (Life), yes it is arrogance to assert we know what it means or is. It is outside the realm of science (plausible modes of description which are not the actual) and religion (largely metaphorical modes of description) both, yes.

    "When I claim abandonment I mean to the circuitry and the possibility that tomorrow my circuits may claim that we are all slaves of the extraterrestrial Annunaki race. "

    Haha! This cheered me up.

    "I just roll with it, because it really doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things because it is a part of the grand scheme of things."

    I agree, good attitude in this case.

    All the best brudda. Your last comment makes sense to me anyway. Just don't imply I'm happy clappy please! Whatever, doesn't matter either way...

    Cheers,
    Gabriel

    ReplyDelete
  30. Feel free to challenge my circuits at anytime...

    : )
    Mike

    ReplyDelete
  31. "It's called "dead" Jonathan. When the functioning of the brain shuts off, you are no longer conscious because you are quite simply dead. "Total locked in syndrome" is not dead, because neurons are still firing."

    As I explained with the automatic door example, movement or responsiveness to an environment is not evidence of consciousness.

    Since you requested that I limited my questions to one or two at a time, here are the two:
    -Is your life fictional?
    -If your life is fictional, why do you eat, knowing that you are just prolonging the fiction?

    ReplyDelete
  32. My life is both factual and fictional as is yours. Hunger and eating is factual, the ways we eat are fictional.

    If a day comes when fictional realities drive me to suicide, then so be it. It's outside my control since there is no free-will. However, I hit that stage many years ago and now simply have fun playing with fictional realities, as in here.

    Thanks!
    Mike

    ReplyDelete
  33. Yeah, it sounds like fun thinking that your life is meaningless and fictional except for survival needs. I still don't understand how the part of you that thinks life is fictional allows you to do anything to prolong that life. There's a clear contradiction here or at least a massive divide in your psyche. I think this is an elaborate defense mechanism that you have woven for yourself.

    I'm not suggesting that you commit suicide - that would be just as fictional.

    Don't get me wrong, I can see the possibility that life might be meaningless and I would never purposefully lie to myself, even if it meant accepting it was meaningless, but I'd rather take a shot at finding some meaning. You might want to think about what you're saying versus what you're doing.

    ReplyDelete
  34. "There's a clear contradiction here or at least a massive divide in your psyche."

    Much brighter minds than mine have said the same. You might want to read Balkesar or Maharshi, or even Jed Mckenna (pseudonym). I only weave it with neuroscience.

    But I recognize your resistance and it's certainly expected, because you have no free-will to do anything differently, you can only go where the conditioned circuits take you. Just like me.

    Au contraire, death is the most factual element of any fictional existence. Numerous fictional realities have been constructed only to hide from that fact alone.

    Good luck on your meaning search!
    Mike

    ReplyDelete
  35. Have brighter minds never said otherwise?

    Where does Jed McKenna say that there is no free will? If you've read his latest book, he says that consciousness is all. He directly states that there is no objective world, which is a requirement for your theory. If you've read his first book, he says that nothing can be known outside of one's own existence, which would include knowledge of causality or free will. I haven't read every page of Jed's four books, but I have them all so I could easily look it up if you can point me in the right direction.

    I didn't say that death was fictional. I said that suicide would be fictional, which would imply that you cared about your (fictional) life to actively want to escape it.

    ReplyDelete
  36. "Simply put, I don't think. I don't make choices or decisions. I don't weigh possibilities and select one over others. Instead I observe patterns and move with them. I have a refined sense of rightness and not-rightness that guide me in all things. I wait for unfolding. I sense currents and I flow with them.
    You don't have to be enlightened to operate this way. YOU JUST HAVE TO RELEASE THE TILLER. Once you do an entirely new way of flowing through life opens to you. Look for the pattern, the unifying theme, the sum of the parts that explains your existence."

    -Mckenna

    Release the tiller Jonathan. End the resistance and flow with whatever the universe has in store for you.

    Wait for the "unfolding".....and flow with it.

    Move with the patterns...

    Actually, you're doing it now....

    Thanks!
    Mike

    ReplyDelete
  37. This has nothing to do with free will or it not existing. It's Jed saying that he lives by intuition and that his intuition is so well-developed that he doesn't have to debate with himself. If anything he is implying that a choice to follow the patterns or fight them exists.

    This is a perfect example of someone trying to adopt a truth professed by someone else and not finding it by revelation. It's just not the same.

    ReplyDelete
  38. I dont know bro, I think the simplest test would be to just try and not come and read this site. If you can then that will be that, and if you cant then maybe....

    ReplyDelete
  39. "Ever been depressed? Really depressed? Like nothing means anything? Like there's no point to anything? And what's the worst thing about those dark moments? Where do they get their power?
    From their undeniability. From the fact that there's no argument. When you're in that state you know perfectly well that it's true. You're seeing something that you don't normally allow yourself to see. That's when you're seeing without your protective glasses. That's when you pull back the curtain and see things as they are. You know the feeling of utter futility. At the heart of that black despair is the knowledge that that's real- everything is futile."

    S'okay Jonathan. It's all meaningless anyhow....

    Thanks!
    Mike

    ReplyDelete
  40. BTW, that quote above is Mckenna and he's just saying what dozens of others have said in the past.

    Fictional realities will insure that most will never have to face this...
    Mike

    ReplyDelete
  41. Happy Thanksgiving, y'all.

    Again, in that quote, Jed is not saying that there's no free will and in the trimmed part of the quote below, he's saying that you have control over not allowing yourself to see which could imply that you also have control in allowing yourself to see.

    "You're seeing something that you don't normally allow yourself to see."

    So what made you change your tune on Jed? I believe you wrote an article about he had the biggest ego of them all. Have you read his most recent book? It's utter nonsense.

    ReplyDelete
  42. He provides a few blossoms amongst the turds.

    Have a great holiday!
    (fictional as it is)
    Mike

    ReplyDelete
  43. Hello Mike...
    Now that you're sort of ok with Jed, I guess it's safe for me to enter the fray. Just kidding, a long T-day weekend allows me to finally quit procrastinating and set up my internet identity so that I can play too. I'm pretty much in agreement with all your premises - it doesn't take a lot of poking to see what we are actually made of, a motley collection of accrued programs (or more likely viruses) which in combination generate one particular flavor of personality.

    The difficult part is of course resisting the urge to think that this personality is anything other than a mirage. Maya is very compelling. So that's really my area of interest: even though I know what is true, I just can't seem to believe it. Or perhaps better put into Jed-speak, unbelive what is untrue. Why is that? I guess what I'm saying is we've deconstructed the nature of the universe/being as much as humanly possible, now we have to deconstruct Maya.

    Jonathan: Of course the latest book is utter nonsense, what else could it be? However since we are in the amusement park for a while, let's play along. I think his trilogy addendum has a lot of girth. One particular aspect I like is his use of terminology which finally satisfies me, mainly his explanation of the difference between "Truth" and "Reality". In our current area of interest, terms get bandied about a lot, invariably misinterpreted, misconstrued, or just plain missed - I am satisfied with his set.

    As far as free will is concerned, there is absolutely no logical argument that can prove the existence of that primal thought that decides to think another thought that decides to exercise free will. They all arise spontaneously and our personality-virus carefully crafts into a shape that it then labels "choice", or perhaps "god". It's a pretty freaking amazing process actually. But again, the problem is that the personality that knows a little bit too much, recognizes at some level the utter falseness of it all, then fabricates a new story involving nihilism, despair, solipsism, etc - pick your poison. Brilliant. So, all Jed was saying was that you can (pretend to) go along with it, or (pretend to) fight it - don't matter much, the outcome is the same.

    So can I play? I promise not to get all Jed-y all the time.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Chris,

    "Now that you're sort of ok with Jed, I guess it's safe for me to enter the fray."

    I was never NOT "ok with Jed," just as I'm never NOT "ok" with any other egos that only do what they are programmed to do (including me). Lotsa turd blossoms in his writings, but then, good things grow from the most rancid sheit.

    "So, all Jed was saying was that you can (pretend to) go along with it, or (pretend to) fight it - don't matter much, the outcome is the same."

    Exactly. Yet, the Jedi Master continues to advocate techniques and practices that are simply unnecessary (although, it does sell books). Whether or not someone engages "witnessing," or not, is not up to them anyway, so why bother with recommending practices or things to do when there is no free-will as to what one "chooses" to do?

    "It's a pretty freaking amazing process actually."

    Hmmm...I wonder if the predetermined causal order that has shaped the natural world from the primordial soup of the universe, and continues to do so, ad infinitum, considers the process "amazing."

    Although it is accurate that egocentrica mammalia requires it all be..."amazing" and sometimes even 'awesome.'

    Your tone and diction reminds me of another Jedi Master I once enjoyed sparring with. But her light saber could left not a scratch and so, she banished me from her illusory kingdom. Ha!

    Here...all are welcome.
    Mike

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Mike, thanks for the notes.
      You'll have to excuse my sense of humor - it doesn't always convey well in person, let alone in a forum like this.
      As far as sparring, there won't be any of that, got the T-shirt already. Though it is good to hear that you are invulnerable.

      As far as "techniques and practices that are simply unnecessary", that is true and most appear to provide a comfortable source of income for the suppliers. Contrast that cynical notion with the neo-advaitist "nothing to do" premise you refer to. While fundamentally true, in the meantime the mind conjures up all sorts of fantasies, including a good dose of self-inflicted psychological pain. As far as I can tell, the real purpose of life at this point (past the procreation stage) is to minimize pain. So to that end, I could resort to many available psychological parlor tricks in order to destroy these fantasies. But of course that is yet another fantasy. Uh-oh. It's bootstraps all the way down.

      Chris

      Delete
    2. Chris,

      Actually I am more a 'neuro-advaitist.' Ha! Humor, no matter how deluded, is most welcome here (I certainly don't take this sheit seriously)

      And my premise is not a 'nothing to do' but a 'you will do exactly what you're supposed to do,' based on what a predetermined causal order has neurally wired you up to do. There is no exit from the neuro-circuitry and "you" are it's captive, because it has nullified your free-will (but allows a delusion of such and even that is hard-wired in). All techniques and practices are unnecessary, especially in recognizing there is no free-will. Hence, any technique or practice engaged with had to be engaged with exactly as it is engaged with.

      Thanks!
      Mike

      Delete

  45. Actually I am more a 'neuro-advaitist.' Ha! Humor, no matter how deluded, is most welcome here (I certainly don't take this sheit seriously)


    Mike,
    "neuro-advaitist"... cute term. The not-two aspect would be that the gray matter is indistinguishable from any other chunk of matter in the universe, it only imagines it is.

    "my premise is not a 'nothing to do' but a 'you will do exactly what you're supposed to do'". I suppose I see those as somewhat interchangeable. Agreed, your actions are all predetermined* based on the genetic basis coupled with subtle brain programming by the environment. Perhaps 'nothing to do' should read 'whatever you think you can do is pointless as it all happens as it does'.

    It reminds me of a Wayne Liquorman story that I read when I used to read that stuff:

    "... likens the belief in egoic autonomy to being on a boat ride at Disneyland. You're floating along, the fake animals on either shore or doing their own automated thing, and you turn the wheel to the left -- and the boat turns left. Amazing! You turn the wheel right -- and the boat turns right with you. You think, "I can turn this boat wherever I want." So you turn the wheel to the left again, but this time the boat turns right. The robotic monkeys laugh at you, you think, and you're forced to start to question the belief that you're actually controlling this boat."


    I bet you are as much fun as parties as I am: "Hi, my name is Chris, did you know that everything you think you are is completely imaginary and untrue?". A real conversation starter.

    * I posit that given a computer powerful enough, and a sensing system able to observe everything in the universe, all outcomes would be completely deterministic. Given identical input conditions, two items will behave in exactly the same way. As this kind of analysis is impossible, everything that happens appears random and for all practical purposes, may as well be treated that way.

    ReplyDelete
  46. "Perhaps 'nothing to do' should read 'whatever you think you can do is pointless as it all happens as it does'."

    Works for me....

    Thanks!
    Mike

    ReplyDelete
  47. But in the end eveything boils down to:

    Is the ride worth riding? Is it joyfull to be alive? Would one want to do it again under these circumstances?

    Who cares if consciousness is locaded in the brain or not? And if we are all fictional selfs, isn't it a good point to at least enjoy that particular kind of fiction as best as we can? (Of course without harming the joy other riders in their particular ride.)

    What is so bad about being egocentric if it is unavoidable anyway?

    For me it's like this:

    As much joy as possible for all living forms! No form is allowed to make another form suffer just because it's fun for it to superimpose it's own suffering onto others. If one likes suffering...please do so but do it in seclusion...alone...and for your own. ELSE!

    And let me add this: Poverty and polluting the environment is harming the joy of a lot of beings. And because of that absolutely nobody can be realy completely happy because if one being suffers the other beings will suffer too.

    THAT is the meaning of a-dvaita...not-two.

    It's all very easy if we are willing to be honest and earnest regarding the reasons for the suffering of our fellow beings. No big secret anywhere. Only the willing to see, to hear, and to take responsibility for our doings. (Even if that is what one is supposed to do anyway.)

    Choices are been made. That is not the question. The question is will one take responsibily for it althought one might not have "free will". It's like saying: "I may not have "free will" but I just don't care. I act as if I have. My no-free-will is to take responibility for my mental condition and my actions! Ha!"

    Anja

    ReplyDelete
  48. Why act as if you had free-will upon concluding undeniably that you don't? Why take responsibility for a will power that is not of you?

    That would be like me taking responsibility for the fact that you robbed a bank.

    It appears you believe you make choices autonomously, free of any other causal factor.

    Simply surrender to the fact that you are in charge of nothing, not even the thoughts that arise in your head. They just arise, influenced by external circumstance or internal programming. You do not pick and choose what thought to have, otherwise, you'd have to choose to think it before you thought it. There would need to be a 'thought chooser' in your head choosing to have thoughts before they arose and that is patently absurd.

    To act as if you have free-will, even though you know you don't is to live a lie.

    Mike

    ReplyDelete