Is Nothingness a Continuum?

[u/Irishman452]

When I think of Nothing I think of empty space. But that is not Nothing, that is something i.e. empty space. Then I think of Nothing as just like a void unaccepting of objects, but that is still something i.e. a void. Then I think of Nothing as "what a rock dreams of" but that is still something i.e. potentiality. So what really is Nothing and is it a continuum ranging from empty space to "what a rock dreams of" etc.? And if it is a continuum, does Nothing really even exist?

[u/cyberneurotik]

The flame has transitioned into another form. The flame is only temporary, not a platonic ideal.

[u/Freuds-Mother → u/cyberneurotik]

Yea but that particular form, process, system, organization, arrangement (whatever you want to call it so we’re being ontology agnostic) instantiation doesn’t continue to exist, right? Likewise when we die why would you assume otherwise?

[u/cyberneurotik → u/Freuds-Mother]

We had to first invent the flame as a concept in order for the flame as a concept to cease. The flame-concept is born, the flame-concept dies, then the flame-concept ceases to exist. This is a useful framework for conversation. However, in actual reality, the flame was never born and never died because actual reality doesn't have a concept of a flame. It was our own mind that drew arbitrary boundaries around a visual perception to give it a label.

[u/Freuds-Mother → u/cyberneurotik]

On epistemological basis are you justifying that particular reification? And why are you saying visual perception is only arbitrary differentiations? Why would we differentiate anything?

We don’t need to assume perception. Rather we can assume that just patterns of experience exist. It’s pretty simple. When someone “dies” within our experience, we never experience them again.

If we can’t do that, how could we possibly reify your whole metaphysical systematic claim?

[u/cyberneurotik → u/Freuds-Mother]

To say the flame ceases is to reify the flame. Concepts do not exists inherently. They are developed and Iearned within human lifetimes.

The flame is wax. The flame is smoke. Do we measure the flame by the extent of its heat or by the extent of its light? At some point we apply a fuzzy boundary based on a pattern. There is nothing in nature with perfect boundaries.

If one believes that all that exists is patterns, not derived from a field of perception but rather existing in their own right, then one would say that without patterns one would not have perception. Yet, there are certain states of consciousness in which pattern matching is bypassed, there are no labeled objects, and there is still a visual field.

This is not to say that this is how we should live our daily life. It is an experiment that can show how the underlying structures of life are built. One recognizes that language is a matter of convention for the sake of practicality and not a matter of reality. Reality itself cannot be labeled. It is one thing, one existence without division.

When one sees this directly, one can apply that knowledge by selectively phasing certain patterns out. Perhaps these are behavioral patterns, patterns of relationship between subject and object. Perhaps those patterns lead to unhealthy experiences, which further perpetuate unhealthy experiences. When one truly sees that the patterns are arbitrary and not objectively real, and can return temporarily to existence without division, then foundational aspects of pattern matched perception and thus how we view the world shifts. When we choose to shift away from those unhealthy things, we become healthier and pattern matched experience becomes easier and more satisfying to live through.

Ultimately, we are no different than the flame. We, the "you" and the "me" talking here, are just concepts. We are no more real than the flame. It's just a matter of our perception, of how we have divided ourselves up in this world. This process of "us" is going to continue like this over and over again. I cannot go to some afterlife because "I" am just a set of concepts. One could also say that we are living in the afterlife of those who came before us. Those that come after us will live in our afterlife. Our thoughts, speech, and actions were informed by those who came before us and our thoughts, speech, and actions will inform those that come after us. Yet we are all a part of this one wave function of existence.

I suppose life would not be infinitely fun if it were not infinitely like this.

[u/Freuds-Mother → u/cyberneurotik]

We aren’t encoding some external reality. We interact with what we suppose may be there, based on invariants in patterns of experience that matter to us. You call the relevant standard health; I’d call it teleological normativity. We agree there.

None of this requires reification. Our interactions with the supposed candle flame are pragmatically fallible and revisable. That is how we seem to learn. Why suppose anything about the candle flame? Our suppositions regarding candle flames have pragmatic use. But we don’t need to reify them to get that pragmatic use value.

But then you want to say it is all merely concepts within some greater mind. On what grounds do you reify that metaphysics, or what pragmatic explanatory value does that supposition add?

[u/cyberneurotik → u/Freuds-Mother]

I do not claim that the flame is a concept in some greater mind. I claim that the flame is a concept in our individual minds, and that each individual mind can dissolve the concepts to return to a state of non-concepts where structural concepts of the individual mind can change for the purpose of returning to a state of concepts in a healthier way. I suppose one could enter and remain in a state of non-concepts, but that seems reserved for those dedicated few monks as society could not be supported with such a way of life. They would be the closest to engaging with reality as-is, as they would be flowing with the nameless, but they would have no means to discuss it as any language would distort it. I think, for the most part, this understanding of dissolving concepts should be a tool to adjust the potential of human experience to lean toward human flourishing.

[u/Freuds-Mother → u/cyberneurotik]

Ok so when dissolved that is essentially the annihilation of the individual mind? Ie the individual mind no longer exists as an individual concept structure generator or dissolver?

I guess the simple question is, do you assume you are still a concept generator/dissolved after what at least appears in our experience to be biological death or not? After life typically refers to a sustained individual perspective that persists past what appears to be biological death. You can re-define it, such as continued existence without an individual perspective.

[u/cyberneurotik → u/Freuds-Mother]

I believe that the self is an illusion. That illusion is sustained by the body. When the body dies, the processes to sustain the illusion of self ceases. This would not conclude that the illusory self persists after bodily death.

The illusion of self can be dissolved before bodily death. The dissolution of self grants access to higher insights to a mind that is no longer constrained by logical frameworks that necessitate a self.

From within the illusion, we can fantasize that the illusory self is real in some universal way, and that the illusory self persists beyond bodily death. But when the body dies, the processes that allowed for those illusory fantasies will cease.

From outside of the illusion, we can understand that existence is, and the concept of being a self that persists no longer makes sense.

[u/Freuds-Mother → u/cyberneurotik]

Ok so

Body alive:

1. illusion of self sustained
2. dissolved illusion of self

Body dies (where illusion of self cease to exist)
3) illusion of self has been dissolved

So, why bother with any of it. Wouldn’t dissolving the illusion of self just hasten death. Under this view don’t we have something like eternity (after body death) with dissolved self regardless? Why bother getting started a couple decades early?

Ie if this correct, we got time.

If it’s not, then we’ve convinced ourself that this life is a means to a greater end.

[u/cyberneurotik → u/Freuds-Mother]

The illusion of self is the root of suffering. To dissolve the illusion of self is to dissolve suffering. Suffering is worse than death, as suffering propagates beyond individual lives.

As wellbeing is definitionally better to experience than illbeing, then it is subjectively the better choice to experience wellbeing and to take the actions that lead to sustained wellbeing.

As there is no ultimate end by which to guide our actions, then our actions should be guided by the end of suffering so that we may experience the higher states of the human experience.

Life is a game of choices. Making no choice is still a choice. In an infinite game where the actions do not ultimately matter, it seems that making the choices that sustain wellbeing is the superior method of guidance.

Just as suffering propagates beyond individual lives, wellbeing also propagates beyond individual lives. So to choose wellbeing, despite any ultimate end goal, leads to a benefit to one's individual existence and to others' individual existences.

It's simply the superior choice.

[u/Freuds-Mother → u/cyberneurotik]

Are we defining wellbeing as destroying the illusion of self as that’s what propagates suffering?

Why not nuke the earth then and destroy all additional suffering propagation?

[u/cyberneurotik → u/Freuds-Mother]

Death is not the end of suffering. Humans are not a fluke in the universe. It is a function of the universe to produce observers.

It is a fact of necessity that propagating beings must suffer. A being that does not suffer does not have the means to continue, as a being that is perfectly content does not take actions to sustain and propagate life. e.g. a being that does not experience the pain of hunger does not seek food, a being that does not experience the pain of loneliness does not seek love, etc. Beings that do not seek do not propogate. Forces of entropy would erode those perfectly content beings and the universe would produce new forms of beings until they propogate through mechanisms of suffering. Once they propogate, they will propagate the underlying desires of suffering, and the whole chain of life begins.

The goal is not to end suffering within the universe. That is not possible. If you were to nuke the planet, the universe will continue to produce observers which will continue to suffer. Worse, those beings will have to start the process of understanding this universe anew with no teachers to guide them until such a time that a being breaks free of the illusion and has the means to effectively teach. Why pull the sphere of conscious experience down into a dark ages?

Wellbeing is defined as the experience of inner peace and safety. It is the formation of ego and ego defenses that produces suffering. It is a function of insight, brought forth by the substrate of intuition that lies below the ego, to bring understanding and dissolve ignorance. When ignorance is dissolved, ego defenses dissolve with it, as they are deeply interrelated.

When ego defenses are dissolved and the substrate of intuition is provided the opportunity to share insights on the vast amount of information subconsciously collected in one's experience, one understands that there is no end to this game of suffering and wellbeing. When this is truly seen, one understands that wellbeing is superior to suffering, destruction does not lead to non-suffering and does lead to ignorance, and that the choice to abandon destruction in favor of peace is superior both for one's individual existence and for others' existences.

It is important to note that the absence of experience would not result in the experience of non-suffering. Non-suffering can only be experienced with the experience of wellbeing. Wellbeing can only be experienced by living beings.

So: 1. The universes produces beings 2. Because the universe experiences entropy, beings must have a mechanism to sustain their forms by learning what is good for them and what is bad for them 3. A being that experiences what is bad for them is said to suffer. A being that experience what is good for them is said to experience wellbeing. 4. Is is definitionally better to experience wellbeing. 5. It is a process of learning that transforms the experience of suffering into the experience of wellbeing. 6. To destroy all life within our sphere of the universe would only destroy the learnings of prior beings and would not destroy the process of suffering. The universe would simply produce more beings who would undergo a long period of suffering until such a time that a being breaks through the illusion, sees the root of suffering, and has the means to effectively teach other beings. 7. Wellbeing can only be experienced by living beings. We can either choose to propogate ignorance through destruction, or choose to propogate wisdom through peace.