Paradox
©
Fisana

Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Is Consciousness a Fundamental Quality of the Universe?


  • Please log in to reply
18 replies to this topic

#1 clumsy

clumsy

    Mycophiliac

  • Gold VIP
  • 95 posts

Posted 29 July 2020 - 03:32 PM

"I see awakening experiences as encounters with fundamental consciousness, in which we sense its presence in everything around us, including our own selves. We experience a sense of oneness because oneness is the fundamental reality of things." Panpsychism suggests that consciousness is an inherent property of any highly organized matter, even a fundamental quality of the universe.

 

Who, here, has not experienced oneness, even if briefly? Most trip reports, if the trip went well, mention oneness. The assertion of the primacy of consciousness is in tune with the idea that shrooms permit us to experience reality beyond the daily grind.

 

People may be perceiving the world as they need it to be, rather than as it really is. When we are tripping, we don’t need it to be anything. That’s when it gets wild and fun.

 

  • Skywatcher and planetcaravan03 like this

#2 PJammer24

PJammer24

    Archetype Novice

  • OG VIP
  • 2,243 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 29 July 2020 - 03:45 PM

I had been reading a book on biocentrism prior to my dog tearing it to shreds... Had I more time with the book, I may have had a more robust reply prepared for this thread... I can only now say... maybe? :tinfoil: :biggrin:


  • Skywatcher likes this

#3 TVCasualty

TVCasualty

    Embrace Your Damage

  • Moderator
  • 13,151 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 29 July 2020 - 04:12 PM

It's definitely a fundamental quality of mine! I wouldn't even know where to begin without it.

 

 

And Max Planck's as well:
 
I regard consciousness as fundamental. I regard matter as derivative from consciousness. We cannot get behind consciousness. Everything that we talk about, everything that we regard as existing, postulates consciousness. -Max Planck


  • Skywatcher and clumsy like this

#4 clumsy

clumsy

    Mycophiliac

  • Gold VIP
  • 95 posts

Posted 29 July 2020 - 08:13 PM

TVCasualty said "It's definitely a fundamental quality of mine!". Well, yes, but the point here is that consciousness is everywhere. Some animals, and some people, are better at expressing this universal quality than others. And, of course, when there is a sudden (not cultivated over many years) flow, it can appear as a temporary dysfunction, as someone tripping may appear.


  • TVCasualty likes this

#5 Moonless

Moonless

    Mycotopiate

  • Free Member
  • 563 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 30 July 2020 - 02:13 AM

I like to believe so. I was listening to a few lectures from the series, The Analysis of Mind by Bertrand Russel and that man was introducing the idea of Psychologist William James who, according to Russell, saw matter and mind as two aspects created from the same fundamental stuff but arranged in different manners. This idea is neither realist or idealist but rather somewhere in between. At the time Physics was starting to see that matter, energy and thus mind were not so different from one another thus helping explain the hypothesis.

 

If you ask me though, I didn't really buy his lectures so far. I think that there is in fact consciousness and spirt is embeded in life. I do not know where to draw the line of life but I do think that all the world has play in the unconscious which seems to me as a primitive consciousness that pre-existed before we developed whatever this consciousness is.

 

One question I wish to pose to the discussion is do we even agree on what consciousness is?



#6 TVCasualty

TVCasualty

    Embrace Your Damage

  • Moderator
  • 13,151 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 30 July 2020 - 11:31 AM

TVCasualty said "It's definitely a fundamental quality of mine!". Well, yes, but the point here is that consciousness is everywhere.

 

Where's that?

 

Everywhere I've looked so far is still in my head, though this is not the same thing as Solipsism since I don't assume that my head is the only thing (or conscious perceiver) that/who exists. Even though there must be a reality external to our awareness (something has to feed our awareness, or so I assume), it only exists as a coherent and cohesive whole in the form of a projection on our part that took us years to learn how to create.

 

It's like how our ears can only detect compression waves in air, but we consciously "hear" what they mean rather than what they are. So we think we hear a dog barking or a bird singing, not sound waves that were detected and processed subconsciously into the interpretation our brains present to our conscious awareness as "dog barking" or "bird singing."

 

Things get loopy real fast when exploring this stuff; the external world and our consciousness create each other and it may not be possible to determine which creates which (it might even be the wrong question to ask).

 

Consciousness may or may not be everywhere (it's a question that can't really be answered, only speculated about), but it's apparently the case that consciousness is the bridge between our physical senses and everything/everywhere, including our self. So even if consciousness isn't a fundamental property of the Universe itself, it's a fundamental property of being aware of it and for all practical purposes that's the same thing as consciousness being everywhere. We can't imagine a place where consciousness isn't, since any such place will always be a subset of consciousness just like we can't imagine the infinite nothingness beyond the Universe within which it exists because we can't envision a lack of anything since (by definition) there's literally nothing to envision.

 

I guess that's all to say that consciousness is both everywhere and nowhere. Wet piles of star ashes wake up and become self-aware, or at least aware of something that is interpreted as "self," but we/they also die and lose that awareness, or it's transformed into something else we can't really imagine or perceive which seems like a distinction without a difference. Is every death the end of a Universe?

 

I'd say yes, absolutely. And definitely not.

 

I can't help but conclude that the key to the whole mystery is memory. That's not to say we'll ever really understand how or why, just that memory is somehow the key to it all.

 

Without memory we are the equivalent of newborn infants lost in a bewildering kaleidoscope of incoherent sensory data. In such a context the concept of self-awareness becomes undefined, similar to what happens to our assumptions about who we think we are while we're at the peak of a high-dose DMT flash and aren't even aware that we possess a body, much less a name (though nothing brings this home quite like a strong Salvia breakthrough IMO.) It can be sublimely beautiful and intense (or viscerally terrifying and intense), but there's a reason we don't (or can't) remember peak psychedelic experiences exactly the way they unfolded at the time we experienced them and I suspect it's the same reason why we can't really remember what being a week or two old felt like.

 

 

 

And, of course, when there is a sudden (not cultivated over many years) flow, it can appear as a temporary dysfunction, as someone tripping may appear.

 

 

Tripping, or recently born.

 

I suspect that part of the bewilderment of intense psychedelic experiences stems from our relative unfamiliarity with that state of consciousness. The only reason we possess a coherent and cohesive sense of self is that we spent years developing it.

 

The first year was pretty rough; lots of confusion and crying and uncontrolled shitting and such. By the end of the 10th year many of us can take care of many aspects of our own lives ourselves to the degree that we don't need constant supervision, though we're not ready to be living fully on our own yet (generally speaking).

 

That's ten years of experience tripping balls on serotonin 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. That's more hand's-on experience than a college student needs to become a medical doctor, since med students don't study medicine 24/7, but it's still not enough experience to drive a car safely, which we've determined requires another six years, generally speaking.

 

Now imagine if we could stay in a peak psychedelic state of consciousness (i.e. tripping balls) on psilocin 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, for ten straight years. We might not be ready to drive yet, but I'm pretty confident that we'd be able to deal with that state of mind as well as a 10-year old kid can deal with a serotonin-based state of mind.

 

If we add up the total number of hours we've spend tripping in our lifetime we'd usually find that it's not really very many. As an extreme example that most people won't come close to, if someone managed to trip once a week on a strong dose of LSD (so assuming a 12-hour trip) every single week for 10 straight years (totaling 520 trips), it would mean they will have been tripping 624 hours total per year. That adds up to 6240 hours over ten years, or exactly 260 days of 24/7 tripping.

 

The most experienced psychonauts among us (excluding a few extreme outliers) are therefore the equivalent of 8 to 9-month old infants when it comes to possessing a coherent and cohesive sense of self in that state of mind, and it still entails a lot of crying and uncontrolled shitting, but less than when we were only a few weeks old. That's not even old enough to talk yet; imagine if we could gain the equivalent experience in psychedelic-based awareness that we had in serotonin-based awareness by the time we were 20 years old!

 

That said, it might be the case that if we did that then the world would look just like it looks to us now when we're not tripping, and if we took a serotonin-based drug in that context it might make us feel like how tripping on fungi or LSD (etc.) feels to us now. If that's the case then it would suggest that conscious awareness (if not consciousness itself) is a learned skill that requires many years of experience, aka memory, to get any good at and that what we call "tripping" is just temporary bewilderment due to unfamiliarity with a particular state of consciousness. 

 

Since there are many states of consciousness that can be attained (or lost), and all appear to be temporary, then it suggests there must be something fundamental about consciousness that is beyond its manifestations; what is the thing or context that all the disparate states of consciousness that exist are subsets of? If we can answer that question then we've probably understood consciousness, at least at our scale of awareness, and possibly something fundamental about the Universe as well.

 

 

I seem to be an existential masochist since nothing else explains why I apparently enjoy grappling with the so-called "hard problems" as if I'll ever actually solve them.

 

 

 

 

TL;DR: It's complicated, and I really have no idea what's going on but have a few opinions about it anyway.


Edited by TVCasualty, 30 July 2020 - 03:33 PM.
typo

  • ElPirana likes this

#7 TVCasualty

TVCasualty

    Embrace Your Damage

  • Moderator
  • 13,151 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 30 July 2020 - 11:33 AM

 

One question I wish to pose to the discussion is do we even agree on what consciousness is?

 

I see that as a variation of the same question posed in the OP. If we can answer what consciousness is then we'll know where it's at, so to speak.

 

Likewise, if we can definitively determine where it's at then we'll probably be able to better describe what it is.



#8 Guy1298

Guy1298

    Mycophage

  • VIP
  • 1,032 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 30 July 2020 - 08:38 PM

I think we assume that we know what words refer to, like consciousness! A word becomes convenient to communicate with, but it can never fully express what is known by the speaker. 

 

I don't think we can talk about consciousness being a fundamental quality of the universe until we know know more directly what is meant by consciousness in the cases where it is expressed as a fundamental quality of the universe, when it's said "All is one", etc. At that point, we're looking for an experience, which we take to be knowledge because we then know what is meant by that "consciousness" and how it is or isn't a fundamental quality.

 

But, is that consciousness the same as what other people see and assume they know? Probably not. To know that consciousness is similar to knowing that all is well. To know that consciousness I must know what I'm not, to know that and to be like nothing. It is like dying, life loses its meaning, but is simultaneously full of joy. It is like knowing God, but a god like no one and nothing, one that doesn't think of purpose or meaning. It only is.

 

Well, that's what I think. :). I think that by communicating about consciousness as though it can be made into a word or that it can be commonly known and discussed only leads in circles and quickly far away.


Edited by Guy1298, 30 July 2020 - 08:39 PM.

  • clumsy likes this

#9 TVCasualty

TVCasualty

    Embrace Your Damage

  • Moderator
  • 13,151 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 31 July 2020 - 09:36 AM

If consciousness is an emergent property of stacked complexity then it's probably not a fundamental quality of the Universe (the physical Universe, that is; there might be more to it than that, which would preclude any purely materialistic conceptions of reality).

 

If consciousness is a spectrum dependent upon scale then it might be a fundamental quality of the Universe, where apes are a little less-conscious than humans, lizards are less-conscious than apes, bacteria are less-conscious than lizards, molecules are less-conscious than atoms, and particles are less-conscious than atoms (not sure how many more turtles there are below particles).

 

And even if we're ultimately just chasing our existential tails and leading ourselves astray by speculating about consciousness and all the rest, it's still as good a way to pass the time as almost any we've come up with (but not all!).



#10 Severian

Severian

    Mycotopiate

  • VIP
  • 250 posts

Posted 31 July 2020 - 10:30 AM

Light is everywhere, and invisible, yet it's ubiquity allows us to see.



#11 clumsy

clumsy

    Mycophiliac

  • Gold VIP
  • 95 posts

Posted 31 July 2020 - 01:43 PM

I think we assume that we know what words refer to, like consciousness! A word becomes convenient to communicate with, but it can never fully express what is known by the speaker. 

 

Well, that's what I think. :). I think that by communicating about consciousness as though it can be made into a word or that it can be commonly known and discussed only leads in circles and quickly far away.

 

 

This expressed struggle to define consciousness is akin to defining Beethoven: String Quartet in C-sharp minor, Op. 131 You can't, because it's music which expression can't be defined which is why music expands our awareness. Does the term "beautiful sunset" at all evoke the experience of enjoying it? Both of those experiences expand out repertoire for the purpose of allegory, which also means that they cannot be summed up by a concise definition.

 

Like beauty and like music, we know when we see/experience it, without need to define it.

 

 

Since there are many states of consciousness that can be attained (or lost), and all appear to be temporary, then it suggests there must be something fundamental about consciousness that is beyond its manifestations; what is the thing or context that all the disparate states of consciousness that exist are subsets of? If we can answer that question then we've probably understood consciousness, at least at our scale of awareness, and possibly something fundamental about the Universe as well.

 

"Just be" as Ramana Maharshi used to say. Just enjoy that which is.

 

Another angle on the universality of consciousness lies in the non-existence of self (anatta). I have given other indications of anatta here. Anatta implies universality of consciousness because, in the absence of self, there is only all there is, minus self.


Edited by clumsy, 31 July 2020 - 01:44 PM.


#12 TVCasualty

TVCasualty

    Embrace Your Damage

  • Moderator
  • 13,151 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 01 August 2020 - 11:54 AM

 

"Just be" as Ramana Maharshi used to say. Just enjoy that which is.

 

 

Another angle on the universality of consciousness lies in the non-existence of self (anatta). I have given other indications of anatta here. Anatta implies universality of consciousness because, in the absence of self, there is only all there is, minus self.

 

 

This seems to assume that consciousness is in fact a fundamental quality of the Universe whereas the thread title asked what I assumed was not a rhetorical question but one that was intended to be answered.

 

 

And FWIW, any approach to addressing the Hard Questions that involves a variation of "don't worry about it" (such as "just be") is profoundly unsatisfying to the insatiably curious, or anyone with biochemical imbalances that are severe enough to preclude enjoyment most or even all of the time regardless of one's conscious thoughts or intent. This includes a whole lot of people, unfortunately.

 

To me, the concept of "anatta" seems more like a speculative semantic trick than a statement of fact. Besides, the concept of a Universe doesn't (and can't) exist without an conscious observer to create it since any Universe known to exist exists entirely within the awareness of those who perceive it.

 

It would be equally valid to assert that in the absence of self there is nothing at all. It would also be just as impossible to prove or disprove since we'd have to die to find out, making it a claim that is beyond the scope of science to address. We can't just ask someone else since they are subsets of our Universe even though they are also separate, independent entities with their own unique consciousness living in a Universe, too. And science is arguably relevant to such questions since it's the approach to gaining knowledge that gave us concepts like "consciousness" and "the Universe" as we currently conceive and observe them, which are relatively recent developments made possible by technology that also resulted from scientific advancements.

 

 

Disclaimer: All speculative answers provided are subject to change without notice as new information comes to light.


  • clumsy likes this

#13 clumsy

clumsy

    Mycophiliac

  • Gold VIP
  • 95 posts

Posted 01 August 2020 - 04:31 PM

 

 

"Just be" as Ramana Maharshi used to say. Just enjoy that which is.

 

 

Another angle on the universality of consciousness lies in the non-existence of self (anatta). I have given other indications of anatta here. Anatta implies universality of consciousness because, in the absence of self, there is only all there is, minus self.

 

 

This seems to assume that consciousness is in fact a fundamental quality of the Universe whereas the thread title asked what I assumed was not a rhetorical question but one that was intended to be answered.

 

 

And FWIW, any approach to addressing the Hard Questions that involves a variation of "don't worry about it" (such as "just be") is profoundly unsatisfying to the insatiably curious, or anyone with biochemical imbalances that are severe enough to preclude enjoyment most or even all of the time regardless of one's conscious thoughts or intent. This includes a whole lot of people, unfortunately.

 

To me, the concept of "anatta" seems more like a speculative semantic trick than a statement of fact.

There are two issues raised above: the unsatisfactoriness of letting the definition of consciousness rest in intuition (I just know it when I see (cognize) it), and the labeling of anatta as a mere semantic trick. Both can be overcome through a change of perspective. Here is how it happened to me: I had been a spiritual seeker for decades, finally settling on nonduality as the avenue most likely to lead to a conclusion. So I read books and watched videos by Tony Parsons (He sent me his latest book for free - from England to USA), followed by a lot of blanking out and staring into space. Finally, after watching yet another video by another nonduality "guru", I turned and stared into my beautiful back yard. That was it! In keeping with my low-key personality, there was no thunderclap or choir of angels: just a quiet "oh, I get it". A great weight (of needing to know "the truth") had been lifted from my shoulders: I had no further need to seek. The event was more energetic than intellectual. Part of the new perspective was that I came to know that I do not exist. Nor does anyone else exist. Life does not require one who lives. Life happens as if in free fall.

 

This perspective is one that assumes anatta. It also is incredibly liberating in that "biochemical imbalances that are severe enough to preclude enjoyment most or even all of the time regardless of one's conscious thoughts or intent" are seen as such, rather than as "my suffering", or even "shit happens".


Edited by clumsy, 01 August 2020 - 04:31 PM.


#14 rockyfungus

rockyfungus

    Mycophiliac

  • Free Member
  • 52 posts

Posted 01 August 2020 - 10:48 PM

Now, do you ever feel your only truly conscious or present, if you will some of the time? How much of your life is spent in the past? Or in the future, worrying? Doesn't time speed up as you age. I know these aren't quite on topic, but some things just can't be rationalized yet.

Consciousness is probably along a continuum. I imagine a tree is conscious but they interpret reality much differently then you and me. Imagine a Sequioa thousands of years old, versus a palm that gets knocked down in a hurricane in 50 years.

Consciousness to me during a particular trip, was a bunch of cells communicating and then you and I reconstructing those cellular functions as our seemingly random lives. Impossible to really explain.


Edited by rockyfungus, 01 August 2020 - 10:49 PM.


#15 clumsy

clumsy

    Mycophiliac

  • Gold VIP
  • 95 posts

Posted 02 August 2020 - 01:39 PM

Personally, my imagination is so vivid, I can be lost in the past, or in an imagined future. When I am listening to Beethoven, I am locked in the present. Many feel that time speeds up as they age, but that has not been my experience.

 

I agree with you that "Consciousness is probably along a continuum.".

 

When we trip, it can be such a rush of impressions and insights that, indeed, time seems to pass more slowly (we may subjectively measure time in something like thoughts per second). I frequently experience time dilation when I am tripping.



#16 TVCasualty

TVCasualty

    Embrace Your Damage

  • Moderator
  • 13,151 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 03 August 2020 - 09:54 AM

There are two issues raised above: the unsatisfactoriness of letting the definition of consciousness rest in intuition (I just know it when I see (cognize) it), and the labeling of anatta as a mere semantic trick. Both can be overcome through a change of perspective. Here is how it happened to me: I had been a spiritual seeker for decades, finally settling on nonduality as the avenue most likely to lead to a conclusion. So I read books and watched videos by Tony Parsons (He sent me his latest book for free - from England to USA), followed by a lot of blanking out and staring into space. Finally, after watching yet another video by another nonduality "guru", I turned and stared into my beautiful back yard. That was it! In keeping with my low-key personality, there was no thunderclap or choir of angels: just a quiet "oh, I get it". A great weight (of needing to know "the truth") had been lifted from my shoulders: I had no further need to seek. The event was more energetic than intellectual. Part of the new perspective was that I came to know that I do not exist. Nor does anyone else exist. Life does not require one who lives. Life happens as if in free fall.
 

 

Well, I don’t really need a brain to experience that. Or a neocortex, rather. That particular evolutionary brain upgrade seems to get in the way of achieving that level of awareness while simultaneously being essential to it. But I can’t help but think that Evolution went to all this trouble for a reason (so to speak; it’s not really an intentional reason but the neocortex developed because it made us fitter for survival than we were without it). It’s a bit of a paradox, but that’s ultimately our problem, not reality’s.

 

I guess we need to determine whether the ultimate purpose of our existence is to act as vessels and copy machines for our selfish DNA or if all the biological stuff is only part of a MUCH bigger picture.

 

If it’s the former then our compulsion to engage in existential navel-gazing about Big Questions and Great Mysteries is merely a superfluous and mostly-annoying coincidental side-effect of possessing higher-order brain functions that only actually evolved as a uniquely effective way to keep a particular strain of DNA (H. Sapiens) alive (so far). If this is the case we’d be better off staring at the yard and minding our own business and otherwise maximizing pleasure above all other priorities since death is an eternal, karma-free oblivion; get you some while you can!

 

If it’s the latter then emergent phenomena like awareness, memory, and deep contemplation might be the ultimate purpose of our physical existence and DNA is merely the antenna that spiritual energies use to manifest in the physical. If this is the case we’d very likely be better off engaging in deep contemplation in the pursuit of spiritual understanding as much as possible (balanced with seeking as much meaningful experience as possible). According to this view we may well also be here precisely in order to experience as many facets of physical experience as possible, not to transcend it.

 

Since we’ll apparently spend most of eternity as non-physical beings it seems that we should be paying real close attention to the physical world while we’re living in it, and arguably more than we should be paying to spiritual matters as there will be plenty of time available to deal with those (e.g., eternity minus your physical lifespan). We might be here to observe and take notes, or it could be a practice area/Boot Camp for learning how to handle and focus Intent in a context with fewer consequences for messing up. I guess we’ll find out eventually, but in the meantime it’s kind of entertaining and sometimes even interesting to think about these possibilities, or at least I think so.  

I don’t feel burdened or frustrated by not being able to answer questions I happen to ask or wonder about. Quite the contrary. All our life’s cognitive work might evaporate into non-existence the moment we die, but it’s not like we’re going to bring all our physical crap with us wherever we go after we die, either. Knowing that, we still tend to collect a bunch of crap while we’re here as if we’ll live forever, and sometimes it’s fun to play with.

Debates/discussions about the existence of duality always remind me of one of my favorite lines from a Leonard Cohen song:

There is a war between the ones who say there is a war
And the ones who say there isn’t


And the best part is that I think Cohen was addressing this very topic with that song (“There is a War”).

 

There doesn’t seem to be a way to truly transcend duality at this level of existence (i.e., consensus reality) since to identify oneness (or discuss it) is to be separate from it. We only seem to be able to slip away from it for a few moments by ourselves occasionally, like we’re on a spiritual work-release program from the prison of physical existence where we have to be back in our consensus-reality duality-cells every night. It appears that non-duality can only really be a subjective experience as all thoughts and ideas about it must fall short of the reality of it because to think about something is to be separate from it even if we are a subset of it.

 

 

 

This perspective is one that assumes anatta. It also is incredibly liberating in that "biochemical imbalances that are severe enough to preclude enjoyment most or even all of the time regardless of one's conscious thoughts or intent" are seen as such, rather than as "my suffering", or even "shit happens".

 

 

 

Maybe for some, but I've not found that to be the case for myself. Knowing that feeling bad is "really" caused by biochemical processes and such does not make feeling bad go away, and phrases like "my suffering" or "shit happens" are just semantic shorthand for "I'm currently experiencing biochemical imbalances severe enough to preclude enjoyment... (etc.)."


Edited by TVCasualty, 03 August 2020 - 09:55 AM.

  • flashingrooster likes this

#17 clumsy

clumsy

    Mycophiliac

  • Gold VIP
  • 95 posts

Posted 08 August 2020 - 06:50 PM

...our compulsion to engage in existential navel-gazing about Big Questions and Great Mysteries is merely a superfluous and mostly-annoying coincidental side-effect of possessing higher-order brain functions that only actually evolved as a uniquely effective way to keep a particular strain of DNA (H. Sapiens) alive (so far). If this is the case we’d be better off staring at the yard and minding our own business and otherwise maximizing pleasure above all other priorities since death is an eternal, karma-free oblivion; get you some while you can!

I agree with the above statement/position: I could be that my urge to figure out the whole “what is life” thing was a curse. After all, “blissfully unaware” is a thing. Regardless, my seeking concluded happily. At peace, I am now charging into increasing my capacity for hedonism, including building a semperviva-optimized cultivation box (improvement on the shadowbox).

 

...we may well also be here precisely in order to experience as many facets of physical experience as possible, not to transcend it.

What is transcendent about understanding, at a deep level, that one does not exist? Rather, I believe, it is a deeper understanding of reality.



Since we’ll apparently spend most of eternity as non-physical beings...

Oh, really? “When you die, you’re dead”, as my wife likes to say. The reason that I will never die is that I was never born. Self is not a thing. It is best considered as a process, a spinmeister of experience.



There doesn’t seem to be a way to truly transcend duality at this level of existence...

Understanding one’s non-existence implies identity with all there is.


Knowing that feeling bad is "really" caused by biochemical processes and such does not make feeling bad go away, and phrases like "my suffering" or "shit happens" are just semantic shorthand for "I'm currently experiencing biochemical imbalances severe enough to preclude enjoyment... (etc.)."


When one enjoys the wider perspective of anatta, pain merely loses it’s sting. When I stub my toe, I hurt. Pain never goes away, nor should it. BTW, I have a really good solution for depression, but that is another discussion. I can PM you with it, if you like.


Edited by clumsy, 08 August 2020 - 06:52 PM.


#18 TVCasualty

TVCasualty

    Embrace Your Damage

  • Moderator
  • 13,151 posts

Awards Bar:

Posted 09 August 2020 - 01:37 PM

This is ...different.

 

But I think it actually does have an interesting perspective to add to the discussion:

 

[Direct Link]

 

Time for lunchtime bong. Happy sometimes!



#19 clumsy

clumsy

    Mycophiliac

  • Gold VIP
  • 95 posts

Posted 09 August 2020 - 03:30 PM

True. 

[Direct Link]






Like Mycotopia? Become a member today!