Ren
Seeker at heart
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 146
These are good... My Ni is definitely picking up on patterns here in relation to open monism. Don't be surprised if some of that stuff crops up in some form in my notes in the future.
That’s funny!These are good... My Ni is definitely picking up on patterns here in relation to open monism. Don't be surprised if some of that stuff crops up in some form in my notes in the future.
I also see correlations all the time between your notebook and some of the things I post here and think about.
The philosophical framework that @Ren has built/is building is very much a reflection of all of the inner workings of an infj mind in my opinion. At first glace, it appears almost more ST like in nature, but when you start to put all of the pieces of it together, and view it with a sort of wider purview of things, it gives room for the possibility of a lot of "crazy" things within the infj mind while at the same time opening up things to a sense of realness instead of hocus pocus.
Where other philosophical frameworks tend to have a feeling of confinement in some areas, I get the sense that with Ren's framework, there really is a sort of "(absolute) openness" which is an exciting prospect. Open Monism is an elegant and simple term for something pretty complex and difficult to fully define.
Anyhow...I agree that Ren is fucking brilliant, yet still a compassionate person as well as a writer/philosopher.
Just another infj weirdo
The philosophical framework that @Ren has built/is building is very much a reflection of all of the inner workings of an infj mind in my opinion. At first glace, it appears almost more ST like in nature, but when you start to put all of the pieces of it together, and view it with a sort of wider purview of things, it gives room for the possibility of a lot of "crazy" things within the infj mind while at the same time opening up things to a sense of realness instead of hocus pocus.
Where other philosophical frameworks tend to have a feeling of confinement in some areas, I get the sense that with Ren's framework, there really is a sort of "(absolute) openness" which is an exciting prospect. Open Monism is an elegant and simple term for something pretty complex and difficult to fully define.
Ren has definitely created a wonderful bit of mental purity of thought minus any sardonic or presupposed ideas.
He lays it out as a journey of his thoughts as he ponders and dissects them with the reader as someone not being preached at but someone along for the journey as a companion.
(^^^^ @Ren you are quite welcome and deserve it! :3lightblue
"What then is truth?
A mobile army of metaphors, metonyms, and anthropomorphisms – in short, a sum of human relations, which have been enhanced, transposed, and embellished poetically and rhetorically, and which after long use seem firm, canonical, and obligatory to a people: truths are illusions about which one has forgotten that is what they are; metaphors which are worn out and without sensuous power; coins which have lost their pictures and now matter only as metal, no longer as coins.
We still do not know where the urge for truth comes from; for as yet we have heard only of the obligation imposed by society that it should exist: to be truthful means using the customary metaphors – in moral terms, the obligation to lie according to fixed convention, to lie herd-like in a style obligatory for all..."
Friedrich Nietzsche
:thankyouhug:
Ah, Friedrich. Always very thought-provoking. On Truth and Lies in a Nonmoral Sense is a great essay!
Among spiritually-enlightened Tibetans, the notion that we all live in a Matrix-style illusion is widespread.
But the illusion is not maintained by rogue machines - it is generated by our own minds.
I've come across cosmologists who point out that we are much more likely to be living in a world generated by software than in a physical world, simply because (they say) there seems to be many more ways it could happen. Once one physically based super civilisation has the means of creating a complete virtual world, it won't stop there - it'll probably create billions of them. If they are any good, many of the simulations will develop virtual super civilisations of their own that will create billions of 2nd level simulated worlds - and each of these will go on to create still higher levels, and so on indefinitely. It that's right there will be almost infinite numbers of simulated realities for every physical one with a supercivilisation that has the capability of setting it off. In fact why start off with a physical world at all - perhaps it'sturtlesvirtual worlds all the way down.
From another angle, I can't see myself how we can avoid the fact that the world we live in is almost entirely inside our own heads. I've never seen light, myself - don't know what a photon looks like. I "see" something - a red coloured book, say - and it's based on a projection on my retina, which is processed into brain software, churned and integrated with the feel and smell of the book (each processed in a similar way) then combined with all my previous experiences of red, book, paper, text, language, etc - and turned into something that is not at all like the mass of quarks, electrons and gluons that I'm trying to read somewhere outside my own personal universe.
Tulpas, or even apparently divine interventions from a lower level reality, seem very possible from these angles. After all, I can intervene quite happily inside a "world" generated by a program running on my computer and no-one complains that I've created a miracle.
Hi Skarekrow - I love this thread of yours!! Been meaning for some time to engage, but wasn't sure how - I thought for a few milliseconds of starting at the beginning and working forward, but I don't think I'd ever catch up with you in the present if I did that . So I decided I might just as well start at the latest end, then dip into the earlier articles as and when. Anything I haven't actually "liked" in the most recent 2 pages is too long for me to get to grips with at the moment rather than anything else.Yes...great post btw!
There totally is some crossover between the YCYOR (You create your own reality) folks, the idea of other levels of reality or universes in other religions, and also the theory you are referring to of us actually being inside of a program...that we are advanced AI living in a simulation sometime in the future...along with other AI programs all running various scenarios with variants on the people and environment like a giant Sims game.
There are several phenomena that people point to such as The Mandala Effect (which may just be our bad assuming memories haha).
But just the idea that there are settings on the universe so it seems has people wondering....the golden ratio or Fibonacci sequence...the set limit of the speed of light.
And yes...we do live in a virtual world of our mind.
It’s pretty cool to see it manipulated (wink wink) and to be able to see things that imho we don’t normally perceive.
But then again, can’t rule out trick of the mind.
Still...it seems to be more than that.
And yes, you are right...”Tulpas” are a possibility in such an instance.
Anyhow...here is a list of articles on the subject of the Matrix or on the simulation theory:
https://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/ciencia/ciencia_matrix.htm#Computer_Simulation
Happy reading and thank you for all the likes!!!
Much love!
Hi Skarekrow - I love this thread of yours!! Been meaning for some time to engage, but wasn't sure how - I thought for a few milliseconds of starting at the beginning and working forward, but I don't think I'd ever catch up with you in the present if I did that . So I decided I might just as well start at the latest end, then dip into the earlier articles as and when. Anything I haven't actually "liked" in the most recent 2 pages is too long for me to get to grips with at the moment rather than anything else.
I've always had this gut feeling that software is more fundamental to reality that hardware - the way things work is more primal then the things themselves even in our (assumed ) physical universe. It doesn't take much effort looking at physics to realise that even if you ignore the more spectacular VR possibilities, the world is very different to how we actually perceive it. The fact that we can never actually really touch a physical object like it appears we do - a prime in-our-face example. What we experience is the repusion of negative electric fields between the outer electron shells of the atoms in our hands and the object we are trying to hold. Weird!