• Members of the previous forum can retrieve their temporary password here, (login and check your PM).

I Am Constantly Dying: I Am Constantly Born

Migrated topic.
Transform said:
Good point about not even noticing the effort that goes into task avoidance - and thanks for helping me reflect on how it's my blood vessels that often appear to take the unnecessary strain when I've been doing some more hard-core procrastinating. For me this also highlights how habits are kind of an antithesis to the thread's original conception around ongoing death and rebirth.
Click to expand...

If we were to delineate the idea of constantly dying and constantly being born, we could observe lots of mini deaths and lots of many births as time passes. That said, a part of us that holds onto a habit is only doing so until that part dies or changes.

I sometimes wonder if I procrastinate because I need rest.

Transform said:
Thanks for posting this - it has reminded me how on various occasions DMT at low-ish doses has allowed me to see situations entirely from another person's perspective. For me the notion extends somewhat more, such that we are ultimately one person. Most of the time the vast majority of us forget this entirely. This is not, of course, my own idea but one that comes from eastern mysticism. Whether this is an absolute truth or not is beside the point - it is essentially unprovable. I do find it useful to consider from time to time, however.

PS - Welcome to the Nexus!
Click to expand...

And @GreenCube

In Vedic philosophy, that part of us that is one in the same with each other and everything else is the sleeping and waking, infinitely small, and infinitely large, Atman, or Brahman, The Word. Yes, unprovable, but definitely worthwhile to seriously consider on occasion, noticing the lack of attachment we have to ourselves and "egos" as a result of seeing no difference, really a shifting of perspective, but not a explanation of truth. In the same breath, the parts of us that realize ourselves as individuals in this vedic paradigm are in a certain sense eternal, through reincarnation and reconstitution (in a new universe) through the continuity of individual experience.

I align with a lot of this, probably because I first came across some of these ideas in high school, but have diverged a bit into my own conceptual territory about the cosmic ontology of the individual consciousness experience, and so simply say now, "the self is there, but not what we think it is."

One love
 
Voidmatrix said:
In Vedic philosophy, that part of us that is one in the same with each other and everything else is the sleeping and waking, infinitely small, and infinitely large, Atman, or Brahman, The Word.
Click to expand...
OK, I got goosebumps because of this - it describes, or reminds me of, a kind of anomalous experience I've had from time to time since I was a kid. I've described it before, somewhere, but basically it involved waking up in the middle of the night with the sensation of simultaneously being infinitesimally small and infinitely huge, and also perfectly smooth and intensely crumpled, and the searing white light of 'everythingness' and the deepest black void (bless you!) of nothingness, along with a bizarre tickling sensation in what, on reflection, I might as well call at least some of my chakras - chiefly the head and the heart. So, yeah, I guess I had a fair few spontaneous mystical experiences well before even knowing that psychedelics existed, and I have more than an inkling that these may have fuelled my curiosity in that respect.

Perhaps it goes without saying, and is in keeping with the notions of forgetting our spiritual nature, that I periodically entirely forget that this particular thing happened, repeatedly, to me - but typically remember that I have had a fairly appreciably number of peculiar experiences. Also, fairly recently (within the last six months) I attempted to explain this type of experience to someone whom I considered ought to have had some level of interest in spiritual matters and they went completely NPC on me, a bit like when I've gone lucid in dreams and attempted to explain to any of the dream characters that it's a dream and they proceed to melt away into nothing. Fortunately the guy IRL didn't actually disappear - it would have been a bit too unnerving had that happened - but it appeared my dream experience had more than a grain of truth to it.

Normally, this would be the point where I attempt to tie things back to original topic but my hands right now, I throw them in the air.
 
Makes me think of an idea I use I term perfect paradox; wherein all contradictory fundamentals coalesce, retaining themselves, but becoming fully part of something else (that's the best way I can say it in this moment).

Not really having the right people to talk to about some of these things is hard and painful and a novel kind of experience for those critically exploring these things. I feel like I deal with that "NPC" effect as well, and sometimes I see it coming before it happens. It unfortunately is just encouragement to interact less, which I trying to change the lens on.

It is however an interesting alignment between your dream and IRL experience. An eerie synchronicity.

One love
 
In appealing to the paradox, I'd say the self exists, but isn't what we think it is, and in a way by virtue of this, doesn't exist in the way we think it does. The actuality is a gestalt of many previews, of which, we can only perceive few.

One love
 
If self is not what we believe but we can redefine it ad-hoc and claim it actually exists but we don't know what it is... then that kind of undermines the idea that it exists, doesn't it?

Seems vacuous to me at least.
 
If it's not what we think it is, then is doesn't exist how we think it does...

As for is seeming "vacuous" (to which I could just say you don't get it) peep my username 😂

Also, in my original post I don't think I said anything ontological really, so that was inserted by your interpretation of my position in my original post. It's not about what exists or not, it's about my inner experience of self.

I also didn't mention anything about thought, which while it is a thought, the topic of thought you brought in, again, with your interpretation.

One love
 
Last edited:
Divorcing thought from communication is an interesting position to take.

It's difficult for me to perceive an I statement as not invocating self, as well. The idea of death likewise entrenches other concepts, for what dies and what is death but a cessation of perception which is the foundation of thought?

But I am trying to see how:
self≠self, where self "isn't what we think it is"
Isn't a negation of self existing using ad-hoc definition, which makes it clearly fallacious.

Pretending X exists but isn't what we think X is somehow distinct from saying X doesn't exist clearly works for you. I just find it untenable.

👍

Your probably right though, I clearly don't get it
 
Where did I divorce thought from communication? Though I'm not opposed, since there are thoughts I can't communicate and things I communicate I'm not thinking about 😜

Your second paragraph didn't scan, so ima leave that one alone.

Keep in mind, I've mentioned paradox several times in my idea. So using a binary logic system to pigeon hole it will only make it so that the overall idea is never understood. My idea is esoteric, not pragmatic.

If we can't define something it's hard to say much about it's existence is the point. For example, if something is defined by being perfect, but we can see a lack of perfection in it, then it doesn't exist by how it's defined, so in a certain sense, exists and doesn't exist.

BTW, welcome to the Nexus

One love
 
Last edited:
In binary systems it's im-possible to choose the third option. So one could reorganize the "im" into "I'm" and potentially experience the previously im-possible.

The undefined is only undefined since the defined is underdefined. And since the defined is defined because of a perception of the defined, one can redefine the defined by shifting ones perception and in doing so create a new undefined.

The options are infinite and once the last option is found one has become an ever expanding recursive singularity.

Flux with impossibility!
 
In using and operating in a binary system, the third option doesn't exist in the system (though it can be evident to us because we are not that system). In boolean logic which is used for computing for example, the only third option that can often be given is "error" which entails that the system cannot give an output because it's designed to output one of two options. Error isn't a function, nor a viable output.

However, I do think I grasp the crux of what you're sharing!

One love
 
Voidmatrix said:
However, I do think I grasp the crux of what you're sharing!
Click to expand...
I barely grasp what I'm saying. Most likely a lot less then I think I do. Still trying to figure it out, even though I should just let go and flow. But that thinking-vice just won't let go. It's like an anchor that's stuck, I need to dive deep and dislodge it. So I can continue to flow.

🦋
 
Back
Top Bottom