Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length

The way things are - The way things ought to be

Exactly. You can not imagine it, therefore you conclude it can not be so.
Can you not see the logical fallacy there?

I feel now that you're deliberately being uncharitable - probably out of ego.

When I said 'imagine' I obviously meant I cannot conceive of it. It makes no conceptual sense. You can say you have access to other ways of 'making sense' - apart from logic - but then the conversation ends, and we go our separate ways.

I was (along with Vigilance) specifically talking about perception.


In what way am I not being charitable?
Out of ego? Now who is being uncharitable?
And what does charity have to do with anything, anyway?

I am presenting - in the most charitable way I am capable - the fact that I know something very rare and very precious, about the nature of existence. With entirely predictable results. I am not a bit surprised.
Still, with every null-encounter I become more finely-honed than I was before.

And paradoxically: The sharper the blade, the more easily dulled it becomes.

Life is a miracle. But few know it.


I gained access to the entire cosmos, always, everywhere, all of it.
That's God, in case you were wondering.
The larger Reality.

I gained some sort of access to 'God' (or the larger reality - but devoid of agency) through post-perceptual cognition (and god is the ontology of science). I have done a lot of thinking and reading in my (limited) time on earth too. Eastern religion, perennialism, philosophy, science, psychology, evolutionary theory, economics. Please don't dismiss other people because you feel you have the truth - if you cannot communicate it - then you are failing (I mean this with no spite intended).

Hello crow, I have a question. I hesitate to use metaphors, but onwards..perception is like a lens, yes? By perceiving reality, I sense it through a lens. Birds, fish, trees, they all have different lenses, but they all sense the same reality, a reality that exists independent of their varied perceptions of it. Perception is useful, but it is limiting in that only some information passes to the recipient, and that information is then translated. I was going to ask you about your lens, but you just stated that your wisdom originates not from perception. Thus...I proceed in another direction. We are all parts of Everything, so if you were granted access to Everything and you now understand Everything, you must have had to annihilate the layer of selection and translation inherent in perception and sense, no? So I am asking, did you become Everything? Can you describe that experience in words, or would all meaning be lost in translation? Are you always Everything, or was that an isolated and transient experience?

Good stuff, Tree. I was watching you watching this.
Those are some of the best and well-put questions I've seen.
Perception gets you to the point of transcendence of perception. From there on, it's pure consciousness.
You are what you perceive. Become conscious of everything, and everything is what you realize you have become.
Yes. I am everywhere, always, eternally.
But being a not-yet-dead-human, I am also here, in discrete form.
I see this as growing a soul, releasing it, and watching it fly off into everything.
It's out there, and here too. Everywhere at once.

I am - as you ask - always everything. But not in the sense that my current consciousness is that of my soul.
It is, and I am, but I am a dull carbon-based creature, at the same time, and so my consciousness, day to day, is only as elevated as is useful in this physical state.

I do not need, or desire, to retain God-consciousness. Once experienced, one resumes one's earthly life, as one is designed to do. Questions answered, mysteries made clear: back to gardening and forestry.

Best I can do for now :)


...if you cannot communicate it - then you are failing (I mean this with no spite intended).


Bull. I have run into that accusation enough times to have thoroughly disassembled it, examined it, reassembled it and discarded it as rubbish.
There is nothing that can be communicated, by any means whatsoever, to anyone not interested in receiving the message.


...if you cannot communicate it - then you are failing (I mean this with no spite intended).


Bull. I have run into that accusation enough times to have thoroughly disassembled it, examined it, reassembled it and discarded it as rubbish.
There is nothing that can be communicated, by any means whatsoever, to anyone not interested in receiving the message.

I agree there are standards both people in a conversation have to put 'faith' in - if the conversation is to get anywhere - but these come in degrees.

2+2=4, no matter how interested I am.

Fine. But the failing is not mine. When I fail, I know it. And fix it.
Can't fix something it is not possible to direct, and that includes all human dealings.

Good stuff, Tree. I was watching you watching this.
Those are some of the best and well-put questions I've seen.
Perception gets you to the point of transcendence of perception. From there on, it's pure consciousness.
You are what you perceive. Become conscious of everything, and everything is what you realize you have become.
Yes. I am everywhere, always, eternally.
But being a not-yet-dead-human, I am also here, in discrete form.
I see this as growing a soul, releasing it, and watching it fly off into everything.
It's out there, and here too. Everywhere at once.

I am - as you ask - always everything. But not in the sense that my current consciousness is that of my soul.
It is, and I am, but I am a dull carbon-based creature, at the same time, and so my consciousness, day to day, is only as elevated as is useful in this physical state.

I do not need, or desire, to retain God-consciousness. Once experienced, one resumes one's earthly life, as one is designed to do. Questions answered, mysteries made clear: back to gardening and forestry.

Best I can do for now :)

I desire what you describe, and I want to understand all that you say, but I do not. In particular, I am confused about consciousness and the soul. However, scratching my head will only get me so far. I think that true understanding of your words will come only with the experience itself, that of becoming everything.

Did you become everything at the same time that your ego died?

I desire what you describe, and I want to understand all that you say, but I do not. In particular, I am confused about consciousness and the soul. However, scratching my head will only get me so far. I think that true understanding of your words will come only with the experience itself, that of becoming everything.

Did you become everything at the same time that your ego died?


Desiring it is a guarantee you will not get it. Although desire is what gets you to the fulcrum. There comes a moment of relinquishing desire. A point of perfect balance. In that moment, if you are able to let go desire, not only does ego vanish, but eternity comes flooding in.
Of course you are confused. The mind has no power to make anything of the no-mind state.
Use it less and less.

I desire what you describe, and I want to understand all that you say, but I do not. In particular, I am confused about consciousness and the soul. However, scratching my head will only get me so far. I think that true understanding of your words will come only with the experience itself, that of becoming everything.

Did you become everything at the same time that your ego died?


Desiring it is a guarantee you will not get it. Although desire is what gets you to the fulcrum. There comes a moment of relinquishing desire. A point of perfect balance. In that moment, if you are able to let go desire, not only does ego vanish, but eternity comes flooding in.
Of course you are confused. The mind has no power to make anything of the no-mind state.
Use it less and less.

That makes sense, thanks for the responses.

Thank you for asking.

What makes you think you are equipped to determine that my perceptions are not capable of sensing a complete picture? You may be right inasfar as that applies to you. But how can you know it applies to me?

The whole reason I persist in writing anything on the internet, is that I have something very rare to impart.
I certainly don't do it for my health, or for any other reason.
There have, throughout history, occasionally been men who have stood head and shoulders above the rest.
Can it be so very difficult to imagine I might be one of those men?

I see that it can. In fact it never even occurs to anybody but a very, very few, that this might be the case.
This is reality. It can be a very difficult thing to face. But it is reality, and I bow down before it.

By the way: what does 'clout' refer to?

You know with the amount of time we've existed as a species and reflected on our limitations our strengths and our hardware, we've come to posses something of a degree of a fucking clue what those are. I mean this in a very broad sense, but there is something of a consensus between people who dedicate their lives to understanding the nature and the mechanics of the brain that the autonomous process I described has a degree of accuracy and weight behind it.

There are limits to the data our senses collect. The mental modeling our brain does is not a presentation of the raw data. What the brain chooses to display, how it displays it is an artifact of the development of our species over time in response to environmental pressures and an adapting toolkit which includes the data gathering senses.

All of this is not anecdotal, it is not conjecture. You are a human being like I am. Our brains will process the same information to a degree of difference and this is certain, however that speaks nothing towards the limitations of human perception.

By clout I mean the amount of times I had to reword myself before you understood that I was understanding you. I don't mean it in a bad way just that it's been a ride, man.


I have a keen eye for ambiguity. I also know the dangers inherent in assumption.
I try never to assume intent from writing I see as ambiguous.
Most writing is ambiguous.

I often think to myself that there really is no point in listening to music. It's totally unnecessary. I should probably stop altogether.

Don't be silly. I'd like to get some insight into this mentality though; what made you arrive at this conclusion? (genuinely curious)

I am glad that you are interested. One of the main reasons is that fatalism has seeped into my nihilism recently, and the "what is the point?" mentality has been plaguing me. Doing my best to fight that beast though. There is a host of other reasons that are more directly related to music; perhaps I will feel motivated to write about this topic one day, because I muse upon it often and I might benefit from discussing it with others.