/fringe/ - Fringe

One more thing to be clear.

To see red light with the eyes is not to perceive it with the mind.

The physical senses give us some impression of things, but try to look away from your monitor right now and close your eyes, or go into another room, and then see in your mind everything that was on your screen on the monitor. Chances are you just have a fuzzy impression.

Try imagining a red light with your mind. Eventually, if you are persistent, you will really see red light for the first time.

To give you an example. I can not see black (with my physical eyes). Anything in my vision that is black/dark I just see a multi-colored static. Lots of floaters and such.

Yet when in meditation, thinking, and visualizing stuff and having my awareness fully drawn in, then I can see actual black. In my dreams, black or dark areas, actually appear black. A pure, genuine, true black with no static and other such bullshit there. This is direct knowledge, or gnosis, of black light.

Whoever endeavors to know something in this way as by direct perception in the mind, will come to know that thing absolutely, as it is. That can be as simple as colored light, or as grand and complex as the soul life of a particular man, or the destiny of a people.

If you want to have the Bible within you, take a Bible, and focus you awareness on it. Imagine, as long and as passionately as possible, having that bible before you and opening it and going through its pages but don't do this physically. Eventually you will attain a complete mental copy of a Bible that is there in your own mental vision, in your own soul, and can be read without tiring and without error.

In the same way, all book knowledge can become yours, if you will but make the libraries of all places and all times accessible to your own soul. Then you have no need of books. It is not just books though, as I mentioned already, you can read the lives of men and so much more. There are no limits to gnosis.

>>127192

I was planning to try this right after shit posting. I've been studying the properties of the mind and soul. Since I'd made the distinction between soul and mind, and that they may have different capacities, I want to see what the soul can do. Particularly I want to see if I can find the ever elusive perfect memory that people speak of, though they seem largely incidental rather than consciously acquiring the capacity for memory since they never make any distinctions of their experience whatsoever.

I remember seeing a miserable woman on the television that remembered absolutely everything, but acted like a nigger. Surely she could have figured out that such a capacity for memory would give her the capactiy to construct truly incredible models in her mind, and if a person is a reflection of the models in their mind, then she could have made a play to rule the world or even just her patch of dirt. But she was ugly, fat, old and unhappy, like she couldn't figure out even the most basic consequences of her actions or simply remember the thousand times she did the exact same thing. She should have incidentally constructed some decent models of her basic needs, by sheer power of memory, but she didn't. There must be a difference between the memory she was so upset about and her mind's memory.

Whatever, I mean, what I tangle with makes me doubt your beliefs about determinism and the unexplainable. The demon is all about determinism and convincing people that they can't do shit, like the woman. It also thrives on baselessness. If it can slip an untestable and unexplainable justification into your mind, it owns you. If there is a difference between the soul memory and body memory, like the woman, then bridging the gap may take training the mind to work with this new data. I think it's just a different method of observation.

You're interesting. You should keep posting.

>>127191

lol there is a mistake in 1st line

im not going to read further

>>127196

>Whatever, I mean, what I tangle with makes me doubt your beliefs about determinism and the unexplainable. The demon is all about determinism and convincing people that they can't do shit, like the woman. It also thrives on baselessness. If it can slip an untestable and unexplainable justification into your mind, it owns you. If there is a difference between the soul memory and body memory, like the woman, then bridging the gap may take training the mind to work with this new data. I think it's just a different method of observation.

Superdeterminism isn't like regular determinism. It also explains a wide range of phenomena for me in a way that the acasual model doesn't. David Myatt of the Order of Nine Angles I think supports an acausal (quantum foam) model but I don't.

Synchronicity, holography, the absolute, and many other features of reality are all explained properly by superdeterminism.

>>127201

Pythagoras created the word Philosopher.

Tarot and divination

https://smsalchemy.wixsite.com/mysite

>>127210

I think he means that philosopher technically means "lover of knowing."

Philosophy(philosophia) is first and foremost a way of living. I see no reason to 'ditch' it, so to say, in favour of sagehood

>>127354

ProTip: you can develop huge gains by lifting weights up and putting them down. Gains don't exist though as everyone would be doing it if it was that easy. Amirite?

faggot.

>>127354

>it were that easy, everyone would already be doing it

I'm pretty sure a lot of people have already told you this but please just go live in the woods and never give advice to other people because you have no fucking idea what you're talking about

Wouldn't simply knowing just get dull after a while?

Congratulations, I guess, for removing the mystery of life for the sake of knowledge. The aspect of which never settled right with me. You see I love puzzles, I enjoy solving them. I like testing my wit because it bestows me a level of gratification when I finally solve the riddle. What is the purpose of existing in such a lowly form suffice a grueling experience of lifting one's self from the dirt?

Wouldn't you feel more like a spectator? I ask honestly, who enjoys a movie more? The man who sees it for the first time or the man who watches it on repeat? With all of this timelines expectations, with all of the secrets revealed, what else is there left? I feel such an existence would be as nourishing to the soul as a plant shown images of water with roots in desert sands.

What is there left to accomplish? Everything is no longer permitted, but observed. With all illusions withdrawn from the essence of life, one can only spectate the timeline as if they were reading a book. So you can skip ahead a few chapters, you still can't partake a role I assume.

Don't get me wrong, I would congratulate your success but I just couldnt see such a life as enjoyable.

Good thread OP, but I feel like you've stumbled on a initiate level epiphany:

1. It's impossible to share wisdom with others beyond a certain point and;

2. Talking about occult experiences and discoveries with others will inhibit and/or degrade you (some say it brings bad luck).

>>127466

Once you know you can get on to the important stuff: work, with the knowledge that what you are doing is correct by yourself. Knowing does not absolve you from participating in life, and mystery will always be there, even when you know.

>>127469

In reference to number two i recently had a drunk person become possessed and attack me. You might be doubtful that they were possessed but this is not the first time i have seen someone possessed nor the first time a possessed person has attacked me. Earlier in the night he started speaking with me about how he was not human and was going to "lift the veil completely for the world" sometime in his next 3 lives. He just has to get with some girl that he cant be with right now lol.

I like to give people the benefit of the doubt, and I rarely have people to speak with about these sorts of things so I humored him. He made sure to tell me how old his soul was and that he knew so much more than me (but I was getting there). All in all it was just a bad idea. I told him a few things in confidence (or perhaps negligence), and let him hold my golden apple.

Next time a seeker with obvious megalomania starts talking to me I am going to tell them how it is. I guess I forgot that I truly am in a certain position of power with what I have learned and experienced. I was looking for camaraderie when I should have been teaching and explaining.

>>127466

Mystery has always been terrifying to me and not whimsical. I am not one to love mystery.

Also I'd rather be a spectator than going through the misery of life.

Maybe for you there has been the right ratio of suffering to enjoyment but for some of us the ratio is fucked and we are overburdened.

>>127191

Actually, a philosopher at the end of his path realizes that one can't actually KNOW very much (because everything is basically based on axioms; we need to create assumptions to be able to make sense of anything). Socrates got executed because he said anyone that says they are knowledgeable is a liar.

A truly wise man can admit they know nothing (compared to the totality of the information there is available)

Even if you were the smartest most knowledgeable and wise man, you may know everything compared to everyone else, but compared to all that there is to know, you know NOTHING.

>In other words we do it intuitively. I, being too much inclined to philosophy, would rather know how to arm functions to make its motions, than to be satisfied that it moves at my command and the details I need not work out. Yet in this matter of tracing the spirit I have been wanting so badly to discover and share those details.

>I need to stop this tendency. I must be satisfied simply to know and to give no explanation. The sages never explained why they knew the things they did, they simply knew, and they were the most exalted of men, far greater than philosophers.

You cannot force anything in life, let alone your own nature. It is healthy to be curious, but not being obsessed.

==I may not know right now, but it doesn't matter.

Knowing is not important, acting is important

It's time to be an actor, not a thinker

The last one is a mantra I give myself when I'm stuck thinking. Even getting these insights and being worried that I'll forget them is okay.

If you thought of it once, you can surely think of it again

More importantly, whatever it was, your spirit had witnessed it and whether you remember anymore doesn't really matter. You may not know that you know, but deep inside you are aware.

The Buddhists say that there are hundreds of emotions. Half positive and half negative. But there is a third category of neutrality, and there only is two emotions here.

Confusion and Equanimity. Equanimity is accepting that you don't know, and being okay with it.

From here you want to enter the state of Gnosis, also the trance state. You will know, but not in words. You will KNOW, and not need any symbolism or communication between ego and mind to prove to yourself that you know. Instead of doubting your knowledge, you trust your actions. And you ACT.

One way to act without thinking is simply channeling energies. Every energy has a mind of it's own, so focus on an emotion and a series of actions will be played out.

Also I'm probably the wisest sage alive, first I had to conquer logic. For a while I was debating whether humanity even deserves anything, but recently I got a rationalization that should help. Basically, serving others can be selfish if you think about it

>>127970

> (because everything is basically based on axioms; we need to create assumptions to be able to make sense of anything).

I'm actually being a bit facetious when I say this. This is actually the state of academia today, and why quantum mechanics is fucked up.

There are a handful of things you can be sure about, but cogito ergo sum IS A FUCKING LIE

>>127971

so is it possible to think but not to "be"?

>>128018

As the Buddhists say, there is only a stream of thoughts that come to you. You are not your thoughts.

You are the receiver of thoughts.

Obviously you have perception, you have a perspective.

But do you have anything else? Do you have agency?

Is there any notion of decision making that you can be sure of?

It seems that one does indeed have the power to shift their attention.

Anyways I digress. There is a perspective. One can say they 'have thoughts' but that only means something exists whether that something is actually you or not is unknown. It may be that you don't exist, but that this something that does exist merely allows you to have perception. Meaning your perception is just an illusion.

But there certainly is a perspective. That means there is a perceiver and what is perceived.

What is perceived is phenomena (thoughts, feelings, 5 senses, etc).

However, the perceiver is also part of some phenomena.

There is an apparent separation between perceiver and what is perceived, but how do we know whether this separation is an illusion or not?

The phenomena that the perceived emerges from may be the same phenomena that the perceiver emerges from.

So you can think, that only means something exists but this particular something may have nothing to do with you, just merely allowing you to have perception, and perhaps even decision making skills (though I didn't really talk about that yet)

By the way, this is how you troll any and every philosophy professor.

I think I'll reveal some of my power levels. I, the final boss of the internet, had a run in with the final boss of philosophy in Canada. This guy, greatly interested in what I was saying, definitely didn't have a rebuttal.

I have to admit, that sure Descartes may disagree with my understanding of thinking but it's what the Buddhists teach so come on…

All separation is an illusion

>>128026

The fuck does "I don't exist" even mean? How am I to take such a statement seriously? I've seen it coming up a few times, mostly in connection with oriental philosophy, and it makes no sense to me. It just makes "non-existence" into a something.

>>128029

I am greatly intrigued as to the identity of this final boss of philosophy in Canada but not sure if I'd be breaking rule 5 in asking. Is he an author of any books?

>>128031

What is the full meaning of this and how would I prove it to myself?

>>128075

When you watch a movie does it exist? When you play a video game does the character exist? What if you are just a fictional character in the mind of God?

>>128076

>I am greatly intrigued as to the identity

why? stop being a special snowflake.

>What is the full meaning of this and how would I prove it to myself?

There are an infinite amount of ways to prove it. If you weren't a brainlet you would understand the context of the last thing I said regarding only this one all encompassing phenomena. Decartes said I think therefore I am, but that's wrong because it's more like I can see therefore something exists, and perhaps this something that exists may be the only thing that exists. Meaning all separation from from from this single thing is an illusion. All separation is an illusion. You are simply an isolated perceiver (And a decision maker, debatably) but this isolation from the rest of existence is an illusion.

Since there's so many ways to explain it, you can pick your poison and let it prove itself any way you want it to. Perhaps I'll relate it to the thread then. Try to keep it on topic.

>The philosopher uses reason, symbolism, geometry, systems, etc. to explain the world and to convey knowledge to himself and to others. He conceptualizes, rationalizes, and understands. He is able to convince and to think clearly.

>The sage however can only point the way concerning his kind of knowledge. He can say "find out for yourself" or "do this thing and you too will know as well". That is the limit of what he can share with others. You could describe the properties of red light to someone in various terms that will make sense of them but the direct experience of actually perceiving red light is another matter.

The philosopher uses perception of the illusion of separation to deduce the mechanics of this illusion, while the sage knows the self defeating fact that everything exists because of the phenomena of the perception of phenomena.

>>128119

>but this isolation from the rest of existence is an illusion.

This is the Lucifer experiment btw. Enjoy.

>>127191

My philosophy is related to porn. I'm a philosopher, so I have a feeling about porn. I like the way philosophy deals with sexual issues. I was already considering buying sex toys, but my girlfriend doesn't buy things just because you suggest it. But I can't use it, so instead I download it.

The original theory was that sex toys might be the highest quality stuff on the market, but in reality, the homemade stuff is usually better. That's why I'm a little hesitant.

Since it's my girlfriend, I think she'd do better to do her own thing. But I don't feel like I have a lot of choice, so I just decided to look into it.

My girlfriend whittled a dildo from wood and that I sometimes use as a sex toy. She's pretty professional and has a kind of Eastern European feel to her, but also makes me feel really badass for being willing to do something like this for her.

One evening I was hoping to watch a screening of a documentary about men who need other men to perform fellatio for them. I wasn't particularly keen on talking about my own duties in the bedroom. "No, that's fine, I don't talk about that sort of thing." I was telling the truth, but it had been so long since I had worked it out that I didn't know whether to trust my lies or not.

She came strolling out the bathroom wearing a strap-on with a wooden phallus on it. It had straps on the sides, and at the end she was wearing a strap on her stomach. I don't remember her face. As I was kneeling behind her, playing with her tits, she bent over to pick something up off the floor. I looked up and saw the wooden phallus she was wearing. It was hard and shiny, the sort you'd see an urban farmer playing with in his hand. It was screwed onto her, with a click. But it wasn't the wooden plug it's always been. I figured if she got turned on by the sight of the phallus she'd fuck it after she got done with me.

But it all cleared up a month later and we've been back to normal. The one time she did some stitches and I cried. I don't think she realized it was painful at the time. So I told her I thought it was nothing. She wanted to operate and remove some bowel tissue and was worried how it would look, I thought she was lying.

>>127191

Rephrase/recontext:

when i'm in my most advanced zone, i am the witness. the ultimate "spiritual method" is the simplest: the letting go of attachment to all ego positionalities.

While ascending the spiral staircase, i am constantly refracted and re-refracted through all of the relative concepts i cling to and all the limiting concepts with which i identify as my sense of self.

While re-passing through these concepts there is a seductive tendency to philosophize and make something out of nothing and masturbate masturbate masturbate with these (relatively interesting but absolutely meaningless) concepts. cue the compulsive desire to articulate and explain to others and assume the role of philosophizing guru.

This too must be let go and released into oblivion along with every idea and limited concept i insist on clinging to about mySelf. How difficult this is to do is mathematically equivalent to my desire to masturbate with the tender agony of false concepts and egoic position reinforcement.

>>127191

Pythagoras wasn't the first philosopher you fucking clown. You don't know shit about Pythagoras and it is evident because you that he was the first philosopher. Pythagoras claimed to have brought philosophy to the Greeks from the Egyptian priests. 'Philosophos' means "lover of wisdom" in Greek and comes from 'mer-rekh' in Egyptian which means "lover of wisdom".

This board is full of fucking LARPing idiots.

>>135596

>This board is full of fucking LARPing idiots.

/fringe/ is cringe