Also, have you ever looked at your hand? Like, really looked at your hand?
If you’ve ever had one of those sedatives that inhibits the creation of new memories, you’ll realize that “you” are actually a string of memories, not the immediate in-the-moment awareness.
The only thing that lets you perceive consciousness is the memories of what just happened. It’s entirely weird, in that you’ll be awake and aware and able to converse with people just fine. But it’s like the camera is on, but isn’t actually writing to the SD card (or tape or whatever). From your frame of reference, you’ll remember right up until the drug takes effect, and then you’ll be aware of it wearing off, but the period in the middle without the memories forming is exactly as if you were unconscious- there’s no record or perception of that time having happened at all.
No, no, no my cat is the epitome of catness. Don’t be diss-in’ my cat.
Presuming that’s what it says (and I really don’t want to personally check), that sounds more like solipsism than narcissism.
Solipsism is only interesting until you realize that the entirety of your perceptions are coming from somewhere, and if you call that ‘somewhere’ your own mind then you’re stretching the idea of “your own mind” so far as to redefine it.
The source of our perceptions sure looks like a consistent reality, but it could theoretically instead be a manipulative demon feeding us hallucinations, or alternatively we could all be experiencing or living within a simulation. (Perhaps even one that doesn’t ‘render’ anything too far away from the ‘player’.) There are two potential side effects of solipsism being correct: inaccuracy and instability.
Inaccuracy: If reality is a simulation that saves on processing cycles by only simulating things near us, and by handling (for example) the entire population of Australia as a simplified calculation over the entire population’s attribute rather than actually tracking which people are doing or saying things, then this could in theory result in the generalized calculations returning a different description of reality than a person- or molecule-level of simulation would. In theory such errors could be detected by going to Australia and comparing the higher-resolution simulation that starts when it starts being your immediate environs with the previous general results and looking for inconsistencies. Of course if your mind is doing this then it might attempt to correct for the erroneous simulation, perhaps with things like deja vu. WooOooOooOooOoo!
Instability: If reality is an illusion being fed to us by a demon/simulation, then it becomes a possibility that the demon/simulation could at some point spontaneously stop feeding you those false perceptions, ending your reality in a heartbeat. I will note that during my eye-crossing skim of the OP I didn’t sense the kind of fatalism and panic I usually associate with claiming reality isn’t real, so I don’t think the instability angle is what the OP’s sources are going for. Maybe the Inaccuracy angle though.
Now I am just sickness.
I’m awareness T-shirt.
Wow. First time ever that I wished we had a “like” button.
Yes, I am aware, and don’t call me Ness!
#me too-ness.
I am aware of my ness. I am ness. In memory. My amness can only EVER be known in my memory. Which can only exist in the mind. Which I am aware of in my brain. But I possess no brainness, for the ness transcends my awareness and is not therefore real. Kidhar hai? Om.
Okay.
So what’s your second best guess?
That is both terrifying and absolutely amazing. But if I were to say that to him he would call it “just a concept”.
This ties in with a video I watched earlier today, Everything is Memory.
My initial reaction is that there must be some level of truth to what people say if they truly believe them. They reference direct experience a lot (which is reality without all the stuff we add to it) but even regular experience doesn’t bode with words well. Trying to describe to someone how anger feels is pretty hard since I can’t really tell you what it feels like. I know it when it comes but I can’t tell you the feeling. I’m guessing that’s what they say but it seems like it’s taken on faith that these people “directly see it”. Reality being empty of all our perceptions and judgments of it seems true enough. Even the objects we name are just because we say so “a tree” and be anything else but we call it so. So it is a tree but it isn’t (at least that’s what I’m guessing they mean, without hacking their mind I can’t know). It’s like I can fathom why they think that way, but I can’t explain it. But there is a nagging feeling that something is off. They claim that suffering happens when we judge things to be good or bad and that by letting such things go you find peace. Of course the irony is that their preaching and teaching is rooted in a value. Without any sense of better or worse or preference we wouldn’t do anything. They claim to be unlimited but it’s probably just a feeling. Feeling something and being that aren’t the same but I gues that doesn’t matter to some.
My second guess is that it’s nonsense trying to pass off being vague as wisdommand using skepticism to clear people’s minds for their stuff. But when you question them they claim you are the problem and they are right. They call you close minded when you don’t believe them and they don’t question what they have found. They claim experience is proof but any magician knows how faulty perception is. They claim they have peace, but even so that doesn’t make their claims true. No matter how many times you question of poke them they just dodge and deflect with more vagueness trying to pass as wisdom. I get that somethings are beyond words but that doesn’t make your claim true.
I gues what gets me is the peace they claim to feel by “letting go” or “just being”, when they drop all judgments and “see directly”. It makes me believe their words to be truth and that I am choosing suffering and lies to peace and tranquility (and therefor acting illogical).
Why don’t you just try it? You don’t have to believe or disbelieve. You don’t have to work out the truth from first principles. 20 minutes a day, try to just pay attention, notice what you are aware of, without judging what you see. Do it for a month, say. If the results are interesting, keep doing it, if not, you can just stop. Either way, you’d have a much more informed opinion on what they are saying.
Ha Ha Ha! So there must be some truth in the earth being flat? The moon landing faked?
What a silly concept this is.
Much more dramatically stated: “There is no such thing as now”
In my perfect universe, somewhere there is a forum where someone took this text, posted it as a new thread, and wants everyone to explain what Machinaforce is thinking.
I tried it but was unable to do anything. Without judgment or values you don’t reallt act. Even subconsciously you have these, but it’s not really possible to be aware of everything.
I did know some level of peace but I also didn’t move or do anything. That’s why I think they aren’t saying something, but it’s impossible to verify.
That’s why I don’t believe in “direct experience” since we are just assuming dropping everything yields it. If you don’t know what the goal looks like anything can be it. They say “nothing” is our true nature but humans aren’t born blank slates. Even newborns have some concept of a self.
It’s true that Buddhism has goals and values. The point of the whole philosophy is to end suffering, which is a goal, and entails the value that it is desirable to not suffer. There is also the value of metta which is the wish for all beings to be happy and well. Since the goal of Buddhism is to end suffering, you might find it incompatible with other goals you might have, like, be financially successful, or be an involved family member.
Of course you don’t move or act when you are meditating. Why is that a problem? It only goes for 20 minutes. You can also do walking meditation, and working meditation if sitting still is an issue (but why is it an issue?).
Dropping everything (i.e. mental chatter) yields direct experience by definition. Most people find it quite difficult to do, and also find it pleasant and freeing when they do manage it. If you find it easy but boring, I wonder if you are suppressing your thoughts in order to achieve a still mind. Thoughts are part of life. A lot of the talk in Buddhism (or maybe just Western Buddhism, I don’t know) is about how to have thoughts, but not have them take over everything, which they tend to do.
I haven’t read everything you’ve posted but it’s readily apparent that your beliefs are strangling you. You come up with these theories about how the mind works, but no matter how much you theorise, you still aren’t happy. The Buddhist answer to this, is to turn your attention to the theory-maker. How does it work, what triggers it, what steps does it take, how does everything else react to it, what happens next, etc. There is an experience to be had, of watching this process unfold, watching this theory-maker at work. I think that the guy in your OP is trying to suggest you have the experience rather than create a theory.