|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 25, 2024 7:43:27 GMT -5
I just posted this video as a reply on another thread. I chanced on this on you tube, probably an algorithm brought it to me. But this guy, never encountered him before, Kim Michaels I think his name is, this guy comes as close to anyone I've ever encountered, on the internet, to explaining my world view. He does it in 45 minutes, yes, that's long. But you can place the view of anyone else here, within this framework, ZD, Gopal, inavalan, lolly, laughter, probably siftingthetruth. I think tenka will embrace it completely, if you want to understand tenka, watch the video. I think it will also resonate very well with inavalan. laughter doesn't like my characterization of him, I should have said I can understand laughter from Michaels POV.
But satch came to mind. I think it was 3 months I was on vacation, I don't think satch has been back since, almost 4 months. But I also think this is close enough to satch that he will understand it, and benefit. But to ZD, this will explain everything I've ever tried to say to you. There is practically nothing new here for me, he just says it very well and very succinctly. I thought of satch because he understands Maya, correctly, the manifest world is Maya is a simulated world.
Basically, the manifest world is a kind of simulation, look around, we live in a kind of simulator. But it's not exactly the philosophical idea of a simulator, the Elon Musk kind, or the Nick Bostrom kind, it's more-real, more-realer. But enough intro, you'll either watch it, or not. But basically Michaels asks: OK, who/what made the simulator? (And why). He's basically talking about the two truths of Buddhism. The lesser [subjective] truth is the consistency of the manifest world. The greater Truth is the [objective] origin of everything (including the manifest world), call it what you will, Consciousness. He calls it the Creator, big deal.
Some of you will have to ~get past~ the first few minutes (and the video title). He's answering a question submitted to him.
My main takeaway. He calls the Origin, Source, Ground, the Creator. He says we are co-creators.
|
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 25, 2024 8:38:08 GMT -5
I just posted this video as a reply on another thread. I chanced on this on you tube, probably an algorithm brought it to me. But this guy, never encountered him before, Kim Michaels I think his name is, this guy comes as close to anyone I've ever encountered, on the internet, to explaining my world view. He does it in 45 minutes, yes, that's long. But you can place the view of anyone else here, within this framework, ZD, Gopal, inavalan, lolly, laughter, probably siftingthetruth. I think tenka will embrace it completely, if you want to understand tenka, watch the video. I think it will also resonate very well with inavalan. But satch came to mind. I think it was 3 months I was on vacation, I don't think satch has been back since, almost 4 months. But I also think this is close enough to satch that he will understand it, and benefit. But to ZD, this will explain everything I've ever tried to say to you. There is practically nothing new here for me, he just says it very well and very succinctly. I thought of satch because he understands Maya, correctly, the manifest world is Maya is a simulated world. Basically, the manifest world is a kind of simulation, look around, we live in a kind of simulator. But it's not exactly the philosophical idea of a simulator, the Elon Musk kind, or the Nick Bostrom kind, it's more-real, more-realer. But enough intro, you'll either watch it, or not. But basically Michaels asks: OK, who/what made the simulator? (And why). Ok, I listened to the first 15 minutes because you mentioned my name. It's a mix of philosophy and psychology. It's also grounded in a core hostility, and I can see why you resonate with that. Listen to the content of the question he starts off with. A great deal of congratulations are in order to this gentleman for having solved the question of free will once and for all. I'm sure he'll go down in the annuls of human history as one of the greats for that. But beyond this great accomplishment, is an entire field of scarecrows lining his yellow brick road. You say you can place my "world view" within what he says, but that is false. Review what you responded to that I wrote, and compare it with what he says. The two do not track. Like you, he is interested in "proof". Have I ever offered you or claimed any "proof"? Of anything? He says that "Mind can deceive itself. Mind can prove anything, to its own satisfaction." .. directly after he states as his basis the current high-fashion of simulation theory to explain his theory of reality. Oh, the Irony! (cue the Hindenburg) Priceless!  Elon is undoubtedly a bright guy, and Nick has many academic ribbons and metals to his sterling and impeccable credit, but their beliefs in the simulation theory are as unprovable as the assertion that the Universe is created by a creator. The entire edifice is a misconceived shadow of your mind hiding in the plain sight of a tautology. Eventually, in the scope of history to come, it will be just another level on the totem pole of existential beliefs of the Sun God or the Sky God or the eternal circle or the eternal word. Those last two levels, btw, were the direct result of human kind's tendency to revolutionize their technologies, and correspond, respectively, to the invention of the wheel and written language. To state the obvious for the obtuse, AI is just another progression along that line, as is our understanding of the brain and subjective perception. These are the basis for the existential simulation theory, just as the wheel and books are reflections of those other (now relatively) archaic existential beliefs. You're looking for love in all the wrong places 'dusty. Philosophy and Psychology will only ever give you finer and finer understandings of the machine, but you, are not a machine.  Lemme know if you think I missed anything in the other 30 minutes I failed to waste. Mr. Video Schmuck quotes Descartes. Well, Descartes also said (paraphrasing from memory): "There comes a time in the life of any serious seeker of truth where they must question everything they once believed was true". As the character of Bill Lumbergh might have said to Mr. Schmuck : "yeah, why don't you go ahead and to that. That'd be great". Coming back again to your misconception about my supposed "world view" : you cannot quote me denying physical reality. It's just not what you think it is. Similar to Bostrom or Schmuck I might, in the right dialog, characterize physical reality as contextual, but would certainly diverge from them once they started resting their minds on the juvenile comparison of "reality", to a video game. Spare me the theories about perception and the mind experiment of a brain in a vat. Much of that is undeniably correct, but, kindly refer back to what I wrote about machinery. Neither objective nor subjective. Pause, and witness the mind's rebellion to the neti-neti.
Oh, almost forgot: his projection that everyone needs to have some basis in a conceptualized "reality" in order to function and maintain sanity, is just as shallow and silly as his belief in a cosmic video game. Not everyone suffers from that sort of psychological dependency. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 25, 2024 8:39:58 GMT -5
Michaels explains Maya.
|
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 25, 2024 8:47:14 GMT -5
I just posted this video as a reply on another thread. I chanced on this on you tube, probably an algorithm brought it to me. But this guy, never encountered him before, Kim Michaels I think his name is, this guy comes as close to anyone I've ever encountered, on the internet, to explaining my world view. He does it in 45 minutes, yes, that's long. But you can place the view of anyone else here, within this framework, ZD, Gopal, inavalan, lolly, laughter, probably siftingthetruth. I think tenka will embrace it completely, if you want to understand tenka, watch the video. I think it will also resonate very well with inavalan. But satch came to mind. I think it was 3 months I was on vacation, I don't think satch has been back since, almost 4 months. But I also think this is close enough to satch that he will understand it, and benefit. But to ZD, this will explain everything I've ever tried to say to you. There is practically nothing new here for me, he just says it very well and very succinctly. I thought of satch because he understands Maya, correctly, the manifest world is Maya is a simulated world. Basically, the manifest world is a kind of simulation, look around, we live in a kind of simulator. But it's not exactly the philosophical idea of a simulator, the Elon Musk kind, or the Nick Bostrom kind, it's more-real, more-realer. But enough intro, you'll either watch it, or not. But basically Michaels asks: OK, who/what made the simulator? (And why). Ok, I listened to the first 15 minutes because you mentioned my name. It's a mix of philosophy and psychology. It's also grounded in a core hostility, and I can see why you resonate with that. Listen to the content of the question he starts off with. A great deal of congratulations are in order to this gentleman for having solved the question of free will once and for all. I'm sure he'll go down in the annuls of human history as one of the greats for that. But beyond this great accomplishment, is an entire field of scarecrows lining his yellow brick road. You say you can place my "world view" within what he says, but that is false. Review what you responded to that I wrote, and compare it with what he says. The two do not track. Like you, he is interested in "proof". Have I ever offered you or claimed any "proof"? Of anything? He says that "Mind can deceive itself. Mind can prove anything, to its own satisfaction." .. directly after he states as his basis the current high-fashion of simulation theory to explain his theory of reality. Oh, the Irony! (cue the Hindenburg) Priceless! Elon is undoubtedly a bright guy, and Nick has many academic ribbons and metals to his sterling and impeccable credit, but their beliefs in the simulation theory are as unprovable as the assertion that the Universe is created by a creator. The entire edifice is a misconceived shadow of your mind hiding in the plain sight of a tautology. Eventually, in the scope of history to come, it will be just another level on the totem pole of existential beliefs of the Sun God or the Sky God or the eternal circle or the eternal word. Those last two levels, btw, were the direct result of human kind's tendency to revolutionize their technologies, and correspond, respectively, to the invention of the wheel and written language. To state the obvious for the obtuse, AI is just another progression along that line, as is our understanding of the brain and subjective perception. These are the basis for the existential simulation theory, just as the wheel and books are reflections of those other archaic existential beliefs. You're looking for love in all the wrong places 'dusty. Philosophy and Psychology will only ever give you finer and finer understandings of the machine, but you, are not a machine. Lemme know if you think I missed anything in the other 30 minutes I failed to waste. Mr. Video Schmuck quotes Descartes. Well, Descartes also said (paraphrasing from memory): "There comes a time in the life of any serious seeker of truth where they must question everything they once believed was true". As the character of Bill Lumbergh might have said to Mr. Schmuck : "yeah, why don't you go ahead and to that. That'd be great". Coming back again to your misconception about my supposed "world view" : you cannot quote me denying physical reality. It's just not what you think it is. Similar to Bostrom or Schmuck I might, in the right dialog, characterize physical reality as contextual, but would certainly diverge from them once they started resting their minds on the juvenile comparison of "reality", to a video game. Spare me the theories about perception and the mind experiment of a brain in a vat. Much of that is undeniably correct, but, kindly refer back to what I wrote about machinery. Neither objective nor subjective. Pause, and witness the mind's rebellion to the neti-neti.
Oh, almost forgot: his projection that everyone needs to have some basis in a conceptualized "reality" in order to function and maintain sanity, is just as shallow and silly as his belief in a cosmic video game. Not everyone suffers from that sort of psychological dependency. I don't know if the first 15 minutes are enough to get his complete picture. Probably not, as he would have stopped at 15 minutes. I didn't find hostility in anything he said. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 25, 2024 9:01:34 GMT -5
Ok, I listened to the first 15 minutes because you mentioned my name. It's a mix of philosophy and psychology. It's also grounded in a core hostility, and I can see why you resonate with that. Listen to the content of the question he starts off with. A great deal of congratulations are in order to this gentleman for having solved the question of free will once and for all. I'm sure he'll go down in the annuls of human history as one of the greats for that. But beyond this great accomplishment, is an entire field of scarecrows lining his yellow brick road. You say you can place my "world view" within what he says, but that is false. Review what you responded to that I wrote, and compare it with what he says. The two do not track. Like you, he is interested in "proof". Have I ever offered you or claimed any "proof"? Of anything? He says that "Mind can deceive itself. Mind can prove anything, to its own satisfaction." .. directly after he states as his basis the current high-fashion of simulation theory to explain his theory of reality. Oh, the Irony! (cue the Hindenburg) Priceless! Elon is undoubtedly a bright guy, and Nick has many academic ribbons and metals to his sterling and impeccable credit, but their beliefs in the simulation theory are as unprovable as the assertion that the Universe is created by a creator. The entire edifice is a misconceived shadow of your mind hiding in the plain sight of a tautology. Eventually, in the scope of history to come, it will be just another level on the totem pole of existential beliefs of the Sun God or the Sky God or the eternal circle or the eternal word. Those last two levels, btw, were the direct result of human kind's tendency to revolutionize their technologies, and correspond, respectively, to the invention of the wheel and written language. To state the obvious for the obtuse, AI is just another progression along that line, as is our understanding of the brain and subjective perception. These are the basis for the existential simulation theory, just as the wheel and books are reflections of those other archaic existential beliefs. You're looking for love in all the wrong places 'dusty. Philosophy and Psychology will only ever give you finer and finer understandings of the machine, but you, are not a machine. Lemme know if you think I missed anything in the other 30 minutes I failed to waste. Mr. Video Schmuck quotes Descartes. Well, Descartes also said (paraphrasing from memory): "There comes a time in the life of any serious seeker of truth where they must question everything they once believed was true". As the character of Bill Lumbergh might have said to Mr. Schmuck : "yeah, why don't you go ahead and to that. That'd be great". Coming back again to your misconception about my supposed "world view" : you cannot quote me denying physical reality. It's just not what you think it is. Similar to Bostrom or Schmuck I might, in the right dialog, characterize physical reality as contextual, but would certainly diverge from them once they started resting their minds on the juvenile comparison of "reality", to a video game. Spare me the theories about perception and the mind experiment of a brain in a vat. Much of that is undeniably correct, but, kindly refer back to what I wrote about machinery. Neither objective nor subjective. Pause, and witness the mind's rebellion to the neti-neti.
Oh, almost forgot: his projection that everyone needs to have some basis in a conceptualized "reality" in order to function and maintain sanity, is just as shallow and silly as his belief in a cosmic video game. Not everyone suffers from that sort of psychological dependency. I don't know if the first 15 minutes are enough to get his complete picture. Probably not, as he would have stopped at 15 minutes. I didn't find hostility in anything he said. In the first 15 minutes he explains that his neo-advaita straw man is a self-deception based on his belief in the simulation theory of reality. If you want me to waste an additional 30 minutes you'll have to identify anything he said beyond that, because he started getting repetitive by simply adding detail to prove his thesis. I don't doubt that his criticism applies to many individuals who hold themselves out to be nonduality teachers. But, you have failed to respond to the direct challenge to correlate this to my "world view", and so, you have failed to back up what you wrote in your OP. As far as his hostility goes (and no I don't deny that what I've written is free of a reflection of it .. it's more impatience, I assure you dear reader ..) he's diagnosing a group of people as mentally ill. That, in and of itself is evidence enough. It doesn't surprise me that you don't pick up on it, Like, at all.  |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 25, 2024 9:08:53 GMT -5
I don't know if the first 15 minutes are enough to get his complete picture. Probably not, as he would have stopped at 15 minutes. I didn't find hostility in anything he said. In the first 15 minutes he explains that his neo-advaita straw man is a self-deception based on his belief in the simulation theory of reality. If you want me to waste an additional 30 minutes you'll have to identify anything he said beyond that, because he started getting repetitive by simply adding detail to prove his thesis. I don't doubt that his criticism applies to many individuals who hold themselves out to be nonduality teachers. But, you have failed to respond to the direct challenge to correlate this to my world view, and so, you have failed to back up what you wrote in your OP. As far as his hostility goes (and no I don't deny that what I've written is free of a reflection of it .. it's more impatience, I assure you dear reader ..) he's diagnosing a group of people as mentally ill. That, in and of itself is evidence enough. It doesn't surprise me that you don't pick up on it, Like, at all. Holy fking s**t Batman (that's way toned down, from my first impression), no, he's not! He's merely pointing out inconsistencies. I tried to make clear he's not talking about philosophical simulation. He's using it as a kind of metaphor. The world is very, very real, that's his whole point. The world is a kind of school. If it wasn't actually ~real~, we wouldn't learn. This is one reason I also posted the 2nd video, about Maya. (It's shorter). |
|
|
|
Post by melvin on Aug 25, 2024 9:18:01 GMT -5
I don't know if the first 15 minutes are enough to get his complete picture. Probably not, as he would have stopped at 15 minutes. I didn't find hostility in anything he said. In the first 15 minutes he explains that his neo-advaita straw man is a self-deception based on his belief in the simulation theory of reality. If you want me to waste an additional 30 minutes you'll have to identify anything he said beyond that, because he started getting repetitive by simply adding detail to prove his thesis. I don't doubt that his criticism applies to many individuals who hold themselves out to be nonduality teachers. But, you have failed to respond to the direct challenge to correlate this to my "world view", and so, you have failed to back up what you wrote in your OP. As far as his hostility goes (and no I don't deny that what I've written is free of a reflection of it .. it's more impatience, I assure you dear reader ..) he's diagnosing a group of people as mentally ill. That, in and of itself is evidence enough. It doesn't surprise me that you don't pick up on it, Like, at all. I miss strawhat, laffy. 😟 |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 25, 2024 9:19:22 GMT -5
In the first 15 minutes he explains that his neo-advaita straw man is a self-deception based on his belief in the simulation theory of reality. If you want me to waste an additional 30 minutes you'll have to identify anything he said beyond that, because he started getting repetitive by simply adding detail to prove his thesis. I don't doubt that his criticism applies to many individuals who hold themselves out to be nonduality teachers. But, you have failed to respond to the direct challenge to correlate this to my world view, and so, you have failed to back up what you wrote in your OP. As far as his hostility goes (and no I don't deny that what I've written is free of a reflection of it .. it's more impatience, I assure you dear reader ..) he's diagnosing a group of people as mentally ill. That, in and of itself is evidence enough. It doesn't surprise me that you don't pick up on it, Like, at all. Holy fking s**t Batman (that's way toned down, from my first impression), no, he's not! He's merely pointing out inconsistencies. The title of the video is: "Do non-duality teachers have a mental illness".  I tried to make clear he's not talking about philosophical simulation. He's using it as a kind of metaphor. The world is very, very real, that's his whole point. The world is a kind of school. If it wasn't actually ~real~, we wouldn't learn. He's arguing why his definition of "real" is correct. Reality is not what you think it is, and it's not what he thinks it is either. By insisting that the purpose of "the world" is a "school", you're repeating a version of his projection about how people need a conceptualized notion of reality to function and stay sane. Any "purpose" that you limit by this type conceptualization is far far too limited. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 25, 2024 9:21:04 GMT -5
In the first 15 minutes he explains that his neo-advaita straw man is a self-deception based on his belief in the simulation theory of reality. If you want me to waste an additional 30 minutes you'll have to identify anything he said beyond that, because he started getting repetitive by simply adding detail to prove his thesis. I don't doubt that his criticism applies to many individuals who hold themselves out to be nonduality teachers. But, you have failed to respond to the direct challenge to correlate this to my "world view", and so, you have failed to back up what you wrote in your OP. As far as his hostility goes (and no I don't deny that what I've written is free of a reflection of it .. it's more impatience, I assure you dear reader ..) he's diagnosing a group of people as mentally ill. That, in and of itself is evidence enough. It doesn't surprise me that you don't pick up on it, Like, at all. I miss strawhat, laffy. 😟 Sorry Mel, just a fit of impatience! |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 25, 2024 9:37:24 GMT -5
Holy fking s**t Batman (that's way toned down, from my first impression), no, he's not! He's merely pointing out inconsistencies. The title of the video is: "Do non-duality teachers have a mental illness". I tried to make clear he's not talking about philosophical simulation. He's using it as a kind of metaphor. The world is very, very real, that's his whole point. The world is a kind of school. If it wasn't actually ~real~, we wouldn't learn. He's arguing why his definition of "real" is correct. Reality is not what you think it is, and it's not what he thinks it is either. By insisting that the purpose of "the world" is a "school", you're repeating a version of his projection about how people need a conceptualized notion of reality to function and stay sane. Any "purpose" that you limit by this type conceptualization is far far too limited. I said very clearly, Michaels is answering a question. Someone asked him if ND-people are mentally ill (he's reading the question, and he comes back to it later to get [to answer] the specific question). It takes him 45 minutes to explain, no. He says they are inconsistent, not mentally ill. The other, something has to supply consistency. If this world is not-real, you could walk around the corner, and there's a mermaid riding a unicorn. The world has to be consistent, to be able to learn. I have no problem if you just accept the world as consistent. sdp could never do that. For you, sdp is on a fool's (existential) errand. I have no problem with you having your view of sdp. In the video, in a nutshell (yes, it takes 45 minutes) Michael's is explaining why it's not a fool's errand. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 25, 2024 10:15:47 GMT -5
The title of the video is: "Do non-duality teachers have a mental illness". He's arguing why his definition of "real" is correct. Reality is not what you think it is, and it's not what he thinks it is either. By insisting that the purpose of "the world" is a "school", you're repeating a version of his projection about how people need a conceptualized notion of reality to function and stay sane. Any "purpose" that you limit by this type conceptualization is far far too limited. I said very clearly, Michaels is answering a question. Someone asked him if ND-people are mentally ill (he's reading the question, and he comes back to it later to get [to answer] the specific question). It takes him 45 minutes to explain, no. He says they are inconsistent, not mentally ill. The other, something has to supply consistency. If this world is not-real, you could walk around the corner, and there's a mermaid riding a unicorn. The world has to be consistent, to be able to learn. I have no problem if you just accept the world as consistent. sdp could never do that. For you, sdp is on a fool's (existential) errand. I have no problem with you having your view of sdp. In the video, in a nutshell (yes, it takes 45 minutes) Michael's is explaining why it's not a fool's errand. ZD once quoted a guy as saying "consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds". You resort to logic to try to justify "reality", but even the mathematicians who define, explain and codify logic for you admit that logic itself is never complete. Your idea of me accepting the world as consistent is yet another one in the long line of straw men. And I've never written that you are on a fools errand, just that you're looking in the wrong place using the incorrect faculties to find what you're looking for. The search will continue for as long as there's something to find, and this is just the way things happen. |
|
|
|
Post by laughter on Aug 25, 2024 10:18:27 GMT -5
I said very clearly, Michaels is answering a question. Someone asked him if ND-people are mentally ill (he's reading the question, and he comes back to it later to get [to answer] the specific question). It takes him 45 minutes to explain, no. He says they are inconsistent, not mentally ill. He said that they're fooling themselves. Some of them are, no doubt, but the way he gets from A to B makes it clear to me that the jokes on him. The question was laced with hostility, that he echo's and affirms. Like I said, I understand if you don't get that.  |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 25, 2024 10:28:50 GMT -5
I said very clearly, Michaels is answering a question. Someone asked him if ND-people are mentally ill (he's reading the question, and he comes back to it later to get [to answer] the specific question). It takes him 45 minutes to explain, no. He says they are inconsistent, not mentally ill. The other, something has to supply consistency. If this world is not-real, you could walk around the corner, and there's a mermaid riding a unicorn. The world has to be consistent, to be able to learn. I have no problem if you just accept the world as consistent. sdp could never do that. For you, sdp is on a fool's (existential) errand. I have no problem with you having your view of sdp. In the video, in a nutshell (yes, it takes 45 minutes) Michael's is explaining why it's not a fool's errand. ZD once quoted a guy as saying "consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds". You resort to logic to try to justify "reality", but even the mathematicians who define, explain and codify logic for you admit that logic itself is never complete. Your idea of me accepting the world as consistent is yet another one in the long line of straw men. And I've never written that you are on a fools errand, just that you're looking in the wrong place using the incorrect faculties to find what you're looking for. The search will continue for as long as there's something to find, and this is just the way things happen. Do you expect to look up into the sky and see a mermaid riding Pegasus? No, I don't think so. inavalan might, as he refuses to say he will die if he jumps off the Empire State Building. That, simply, is the meaning of consistency. The universe operates via laws, whether we understand them all, or not. When you get to the fine print, it says, this law can be superseded under certain conditions. Basically, chapter one the Tao Te Ching says it all: If you can say it in words or write it in words, that's a sign it's not the final Truth-Tao. (My paraphrase). |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 25, 2024 10:37:38 GMT -5
I said very clearly, Michaels is answering a question. Someone asked him if ND-people are mentally ill (he's reading the question, and he comes back to it later to get [to answer] the specific question). It takes him 45 minutes to explain, no. He says they are inconsistent, not mentally ill. He said that they're fooling themselves. Some of them are, no doubt, but the way he gets from A to B makes it clear to me that the jokes on him. The question was laced with hostility, that he echo's and affirms. Like I said, I understand if you don't get that. You think it's a waste of time to watch the video in full, I can't do anything about that. So I don't know if you at least conceptually understand his view. He bases his view on mystical experiences he has had, his view has evolved out of that. I understand if Michaels is not your cup of tea. It's just that his view is broader than the ND view, more inclusive, more expansive. I get that you don't agree. |
|
|
|
Post by stardustpilgrim on Aug 25, 2024 11:04:04 GMT -5
I just posted this video as a reply on another thread. I chanced on this on you tube, probably an algorithm brought it to me. But this guy, never encountered him before, Kim Michaels I think his name is, this guy comes as close to anyone I've ever encountered, on the internet, to explaining my world view. He does it in 45 minutes, yes, that's long. But you can place the view of anyone else here, within this framework, ZD, Gopal, inavalan, lolly, laughter, probably siftingthetruth. I think tenka will embrace it completely, if you want to understand tenka, watch the video. I think it will also resonate very well with inavalan. But satch came to mind. I think it was 3 months I was on vacation, I don't think satch has been back since, almost 4 months. But I also think this is close enough to satch that he will understand it, and benefit. But to ZD, this will explain everything I've ever tried to say to you. There is practically nothing new here for me, he just says it very well and very succinctly. I thought of satch because he understands Maya, correctly, the manifest world is Maya is a simulated world. Basically, the manifest world is a kind of simulation, look around, we live in a kind of simulator. But it's not exactly the philosophical idea of a simulator, the Elon Musk kind, or the Nick Bostrom kind, it's more-real, more-realer. But enough intro, you'll either watch it, or not. But basically Michaels asks: OK, who/what made the simulator? (And why). Ok, I listened to the first 15 minutes because you mentioned my name. It's a mix of philosophy and psychology. It's way past psychology and philosophy. |
|
Lemme know if you think I missed anything in the other 30 minutes I failed to waste. Mr. Video Schmuck quotes Descartes. Well, Descartes also said (paraphrasing from memory): "There comes a time in the life of any serious seeker of truth where they must question everything they once believed was true". As the character of Bill Lumbergh might have said to Mr. Schmuck : "yeah, why don't you go ahead and to that. That'd be great". 
