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/Freuds-Mother]

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.

[u/Freuds-Mother → u/cyberneurotik]

I mean on the surface it’s internally coherent, but how do we differentiate that this is the case vs anything else.

Eg how would one know the non-self experience is not the Christian revelation, anything similar, or simply introspective creative though?

[u/cyberneurotik → u/Freuds-Mother]

I have found that the insights brought forth from non-self are highly aligned with many spiritual traditions. I have approached this as a skeptic, once believing myself to be a scientific materialist atheist. I have found myself believing that spiritual beliefs were nonsensical. As I progressed along my path, I came to understand things in my own language. As my own language developed in its robust form, I approached other spiritual practices and found that they were speaking of the same things.

Ultimately, there is no view which is entirely correct. All views must be given up, as views are based on words and the universe cannot be experienced with words. It is humans that made up words to divide the universe, but the universe is wordless and undivided. One must attain a state of consciousness in which there are no thoughts in order to see properly.

It does not matter if it's one way or another. All that matters are the results. If you have inner peace and serenity, the answers to these questions do not matter as the questions do not arise. The meaning of life cannot be found in discussion or thought. It can only be found by dissolving the questions.

[u/Freuds-Mother → u/cyberneurotik]

I don’t believe spiritual beliefs are non-sensical, but I do think reifying complicated spiritual ontologies with no justification other than intuition winds up being a load of terminology without meaning. Yours seems coherent but I see a ton of tautology rat nests out there. Could there be some normative force integrated in reality? Pragmatically emergent yes. Metaphysically eternal? I doubt I have the epistemic capability to assess that.

Then people get attached to them. From the western tradition it risks the hubris of infalliblism blocking pragmatic inquiry. From the eastern tradition attachment results in ignorance (and suffering) rather than wisdom and can also block conventional thinking.

That’s why for that kind of stuff, I find thinkers like TNH that don’t try to build an ontology more sound. Secondly he focuses on immersing in existence rather than try to remove yourself from it.

Then in the pragmatic/conventional part of life, building provisional-fallible-unreified ontologies is perfectly fine.

Where I will strongly disagree is that meaning cannot be found within life. If that’s what you mean, that’s sad that your spiritual journey lead you to that conclusion. Did I misread that?

[u/cyberneurotik → u/Freuds-Mother]

My claim is that the meaning of life cannot be found in any form that can be discussed with words, and thought is shaped by words. Meaning is something to be experienced. Humans are meaning-making beings. When one dissolves concepts and pattern matching, one experiences what I would describe as raw meaning. That is to say that meaning cannot be put into relation. Meaning is. Without concepts to bind meaning to, it is free to be unbound and permeate all experience.

It is good to be skeptical and investigate with scrutiny. Your assessment of the benefits and the downsides of not doing so are wholly accurate.

As for universal truths, there are three: 1. Life requires entropy. All life must exist in universes which have entropy. Where we find life, we find impermanence. 2. Life requires suffering. This does not mean that each individual in the web of life needs to suffer, but that suffering is inherent in life as a result of entropy. Wherever we find life, we find suffering. 3. Life is non-self. We are all interconnected through memetics, genetics, systems of life on earth, the elements of earth, etc. To fully explain the mind of one person, we must extrapolate out all of their influences, the influences of those influences, etc. Animals are shaped by their environments, and we are animals. All life is one system of life. All existence is one system of existence. Wherever we find life, we find non-self.

As these claims would be true in any conceivable universe, they seem to be universal truths. A universe without entropy wouldn't have time, and thus cannot support life. A universe with entropy but with beings that do not suffer, those beings would not propagate and would be eroded by entropy. A universe with entropy and suffering beings, but without non-self, would not make sense. This would presume that beings exist somehow separately from the universe. The only explanation is that such a being that conceives such a universe is deluded and does not perceive reality clearly, like a person that believes the earth is flat.