Karl

You don't know what you are looking for and if you found it you couldn't know it.

This can all be true. We all have to do whatever we have to do in order to get through it. If that means standing on ones head in a tub of baked beans or praying to the elephant God, no one can tell us it's wrong if no one can exactly point out what we should do instead. Everyone suggests that they have a magic key to our own personal hell, but that it is we who will not accept it, even when the magnanimous giver shows every sign of being stuck in their own particular hell. I doubt anyone knows what any of us need. I certainly don't know how you get free. I know how I did it, but only vaguely on an event by event basis, but in such a way that I doubt it applicable to anyone else, nor help anyone else. It's like a sky full of a mass of fast moving clouds and the sequence is largely a mystery. How many books by Gurus did I read that I would now eschew as false, but perhaps still remain an essential part. What I try to do here is to throw down some bread crumbs as to how it should look when one has truly found their own personal escape hatch, rather than how to find their hatch-which I think is near impossible anyway. Anyone who has tried to wean an alcoholic off drink will know that they themselves often become the scapegoat for the alcoholic to carry on drinking. We can end up a kind of cause in all kinds of personal tragedy in a kind of personal 'observer effect'.

There's a prophecy floating about the Internet which was written in 2011 in which the guy writes that a "man will appear who will be unbeatable, that criticism will fall away from him 'like water off the back of a duck'. Which I thought was vaguely humorous. Fredrick Hayek managed to predict that exact same condition with regard to any form of democracy. That it would eventually result in 'the strong man' appearing at the 'right time' to sort out the mess. Unfortunately, as Hayek and history confirms, the mess usually does get sorted out, but only after a great deal of blood has been spilt and treasure lost.

I added the square bracket to your text. This would be correct. However I don't like Adyahanti, or any of the gurus that make this thing into some mystic woo woo to make money selling books and course annoy me, but they are in a sense playing to the needs of the imaginary. Sometimes we need an imaginary sword to fight the imaginary dragon. However, I posit that the cure is far simpler, doesn't require and shouldn't require adding even more mysticism to our already over loaded plates.

"Existence presupposes identity and consciousness presupposes identification of existence". The above sentence is what you are looking for in order to complete the equation you appear to be somewhat aware of. The 'whims' of the intellect are a problem without any doubt what so ever, then if you change around some of the wording of your opening paragraph regarding the "I" being blown around, then couple "whim" with "irrational fears and doubts" and we arrive at mysticism and "wishing". The false "I" is then the crippled, irrational ego plagued with 'self doubt' and 'self fear' and in many 'self loathing'. 'Living in truth' plus 'living in harmony' is accepting reality and having a practical, reasoned approach to living ones life-rather than 'wishing' it were some other way ( another way of saying what you said 'imagine' or 'think'). The point isn't to 'transcend the mind' but to make the mind the finest tool devoid of irrationality, whims, wishes, crippling self doubt, self-fear and self loathing. To make fears and doubts become rational in tune with reality and therefore existence. This is the closest I've seen you ever get to an acknowledgement of the role of the crippled ego, but without full awareness of what you are writing. As Rand said 'instead of where your wings should have grown is crippling self doubt'. It's a horrible thing and removing it requires one to be brave and not just brave for one time, or several times, but to be continuously brave. We must know how to restore the ego, the gain a full flowering (and IMO believe that this is what is referred to by the lotus flower) rather than kill the mind, it is to restore the mind to its full power instead of being held to flights of fantasy, irrational fears and doubts. The first sentence I wrote is the cold scientific formula, but it isn't a way out if we don't know what the way out looks like. If we don't know what we should do because our mind plays a game of whim, fear, doubt, wishes, mysticism. However, it is incorrect to look at the mind as a dichotomy of that sort. There is no dichotomy and where there appears two, or even three, so those number become one when seen clearly. The dichotomy/ trichotomy ( in the case that others add mind) so that we have mind, body and soul. Three into one. Total integration, the end of self doubt, the end of imprisonment-'liberation' as you put it :-)

For what purpose ? You can't think your way out of thinking Jeff. Either you think or you are brain dead.

Man is the animal with the faculty of reason. This distinguishes us from all other animals.

"Replacing mind with more mind" yes indeed, though actually it is building more concepts into the present mind. There is no escape from our minds, as there is no escape from ourselves. We have to make it work.

Perhaps not so different then :-) The entire objectivist philosophy comes down to the final question of three, that being 'what should I do?' All questions are aspects of principles and morals. Hence, in order to make the right choice one must know how to best know what that 'right choice' actually is. I've always regarded compromises as evil for that very reason. It might well be difficult to reach a decision, but it can be made. To choose the best of two evils is to abdicate responsibility. It's like being asked how much murder there should be-should it be total genocide or zero people, so, plumping for something in between (say a few thousand) is to accept an evil and what's more, once the compromise is accepted, it is now possible to move from that few thousand murders , to one much closer to total genocide. No one is performing a moral duty by voting for evil.

Mans life is an end in itself. His chosen goals are the result of his need to sustain it. His ethics are the chosen principles by which he achieves his goals. Happiness is the result of values obtained through those chosen principles. As MH said 'we live and then we die' but our purpose is directed towards sustaining our lives and our reward for the fruitful, moral quest is happiness for as long as it lasts.

You have the right 'not to vote' and you can be sure that TPTB would love nothing better than to make voting compulsory. I no longer vote because I disagree with the current political system which should have nothing at all to do with anything other than law, order and the protection of rights. I cannot, in good conscience, vote for a system of evil no matter how much one candidate might differ from another. Unless one of the candidates signs up to get the state out of everything except protection of basic rights I won't vote. I exercise my right to withdraw consent, my vote is mine, it is my property and I will do whatever I wish with it. In the UK I prefer working for pressure groups like Brexit-there are several-and to promote morality through the philosophy of objectivism through logical argument.

It's no a matter of why not ? It's a matter of definitions. If you have a whole different set of definitions according to your philosophy then that's how it is. My point here is that the use of the word 'universe' denotes a particular concept rooted firmly in what our senses experience-direct reality. It means 'everything' the total of everything. Thus, because you don't have that definition you have extracted another definition that is not rooted in reality and that is 'infinity'. These two definitions: universe(s) and infinity are concurrent, but are not rooted in reality. These are religious concepts which have no basis in perceived reality-although modern 'science' is intent on establishing the diminished reality of quantum form. I can't comment on religious interpretation, it simply doesn't fit my own philosophy, others can discuss the religious viewpoint.

It may seem like infinity, but it isn't, the point I'm making is that using groundless concepts creates bad integrations. It's like integrating pixies, or fairies into our view of reality. Same goes for universe, the definition is in the noun itself . The universe (uni-one) is everything, it is our highest conception, so it's best not to then pollute the concept by creating multiples of things as universes. This is equivalent of any category, say that of canines and then say there is another category of canines distinct from that category, but entirely the same as those canines. Like counting the fingers on your hands then declaring the number is incomplete because there are many more uncounted digits on your hands even if they cannot be produced. Understanding that a category is a defined concept related directly to concrete reality. It isn't whim, the word and the concept originated from mans understanding of the metaphysical universe in terms of no-thing to every-thing. No-thing is a concept defining the absence of a particular existent, it doesn't mean the absence of every existent. Using the definitions and concepts correctly will help you better form your understanding of reality, but bodging it up with floating abstractions and half formed integrations will distort it.

It's large but it isn't 'infinity'. The universe may expand many times its current dimension, but it remains the totality of whatever it is regardless of size. Infinity is a meaningless amount because it is not only a number larger than any number, but larger than every possible number; a number larger than itself is impossible. The knowledge our minds hold, or the relative intensity of any emotion we have felt, is, at any point, a defined amount. It's the same as a number progression-we tend to describe a progression as infinite, but it isn't, it ends at whatever number we have reached and thus remains finite. It's important to use a word that is well defined in order to define the concept correctly. Every concept must have a concrete in existent reality otherwise it is a useless floating abstract useful only to poets. I know buzz light year likes the term 'to infinity'and he specifically adds 'and beyond' to make it more sensationalist.

So far and probably always. The boundaries are likely a limitation whether contracting or expanding. If such a thing as a Big Bang happened then it's likely still happening at some point if we could only travel far enough and wouldn't be a place to hang around. If it is unfolding at the relative speed of light then we couldn't catch it anyway.

False alternative. It's possible to be right and free. Of course it's important to define 'right' and 'free' in context. Right about what and free from what ?

One universe finite but boundless.

Stop rejecting the program spacester :-) it's good for you be-lie-ve. Look into my LCD display.

Why not take God and illusion out completely ? You have accepted a spiritual dimension and to say that the spiritual dimension is 'God' in the singular as a means of explaining life leads to infinite regression, because what causes Gods life force ? This is exactly the same issue as the creation story. To say God created the universe is to ask 'and who created God?' If no God were therefore required and the universe needed no creator, then it follows that neither did 'life force'. Why not consider that you are an individual being with a seperate identity that is grasping existence through consciousness. Neither of which required any ultimate creator, because to have any creator results in regression (who created the creator). Then it's all nice and neat. Nature seems inherently very neat which makes sense as we are part of the fashioning of all things as a result of causality within the universe. The quantum scientists don't like that idea, neither do the creationist Mystics that come in various sizes from Christians to Daoists.

Aren't they all ? I suspect most try and hide it anyway, but the job is to be head honcho, top dog, King, leader. It's not really the kind of job you apply for without a sense of deep self belief about the need to control everything beneath you. Some are less overt than Trump, some get better speech writers, a few wring out some crocodile rears or hug a crippled child, but let's face it, they want to be on top to save having to be amongst all those they will rule over.

At 130 years old ? He wasn't in good health either. Unlikely.

Don't vote for any of them. People who seek power should be the very least trusted to wield it.

So now you are agreeing Trump isn't anything like a Hitler style authoritarian. Least we got that sorted ou.

About the first thing I agree with. It can happen here. However, you appear to have no solution to prevent it other than to call Trump Hitler. The entire Western world has been edging closer to some more universal form of authoritarianism for 200 years, but your answer is-vote Clinton ? Or have you another answer ?

I don't know what that means. A thing is what it is, X is X, existence exists.