It’s nice to have vids (yours) that are spontaneous and get to the point and don’t have the need to fill space unnecessarily You could also address the internal desire for mayhem.
Personally, I think it's rooted in the (collective) desire to escape the (apparent) prison of the (illusion of the) ego...to go "home" to that state of liberation that is the fundamental nature of all things beneath surface appearances and contrived borders... to return to silence/peace. I think we yearn for that reunion with "source" that we (feel like we've) lost as part of the bargain when we "gained" the notion of individuality along with all those associated false distinctions. We love to play as if we're separate beings, but that game comes with its own pains in the yin/yang balance of all things.
I know this is off topic, but this came up again and this time I saw the answer quite simply: "Can God make a rock so heavy that he himself cannot lift it?" Let Descartes and Acquinas argue all they want but, as Mona Lisa Vito would say, "It's a bullshit question." The question assumes 'two absolutes'. There is only One Absolute (or it wouldn't be absolute in the first place). The question is predicated on a division that isn't there, then pits the 'sides' against 'each other', which don't ultimately exist, and this can only result in a fundamentally futile game. Just like 'War Games'. For one to say, "There are no absolutes", is correct - there are no absolutes, plural. For one to say, "There is no absolute" is a misunderstanding of one's own statement. The statement itself directly points to that which is Absolute.
I resonate with much of what you say in regards to society and government being a work of fiction. But I don't think we really want to go back to the "reality" of Nature. Most of us have 0 compatibility with Nature, and will have an incredibly difficult time adapting. I concur that society is an illusion, but it is an illusion that spares us from some of the brutality of the natural world. The suffering that comes from being eaten alive, starving to death, disease, and warrior castes. Without the illusion of society, I doubt the sages would've been able to come to their insights. Protection, language, and order have proven necessary to create a shell around people. That shell of protection can complicate things for sure, but it also gives them the time and safety to really self-reflect. Hopefully those people can become wiser during that time. If they feel called to it, some of these yogis can become mountain hermits. But most people, even monastics, are not capable of this lifestyle. I'll take it a step further: I notice in the eastern philosophy communities, there is this idea that ego is the source of suffering. However, there is some talk in Buddhist and Gnostic communities that disagree with this. Suffering is deeply embedded in our "fabric". It is embedded within Nature herself. The human ego may use language or barely formed thoughts to conceptualize "I am suffering". However, the true "I" thought may not actually be located in language. Some, including myself, have experienced the ownership "I" as a primal instinct that is beyond language. I'm convinced that animals and plants have this too, hence why both seem to suffer immensely at death. If you've ever worked with farm animals when it's time for them to be harvested, you'll know exactly what I'm talking about. This is all to say: in my opinion, a real-world apocalypse is not the answer. A lot of people seem to want society to come to an end, because of the suffering it brings. But most of these folks haven't lived close enough to the natural world to understand the gravity of that. What will have to be sacrificed. Going back to Nature is not the answer. Both society and Nature are embedded with illusion, possibly on a genetic level. Illusory or not, societal order must be upheld. External chaos should only be welcomed in small controllable doses, and only in ways that can integrate into society to make it better. In the meantime; we can work on bringing an internal apocalypse to ourselves, while doing our best to be compassionate to our fellow man, beast, and plant.
Great comment, and I agree....it isn't time to turn back time even if we may play that out with end of the world movies. Our time is to recognize the illusion but learn to live with it just not take it seriously. Be it the "self" or "society," it's all made up....perhaps it is enough to simply recognize this?
Question - why do you associate society with technology? Society being 'the psycho-social program' of the collective mind, while creativity and technology, are not. In other words, is it possible that this is a false pairing? We need functional organizations but only so far as they are purely functional, and do not leech into divisive ideologies.
I must respectfully disagree with the blanket statement 'Going back to nature is not the answer'. It makes a hard polarization between society and nature. Not to mention that society around the world is full of brutality, people starving to death, disease and certainly warrior casts. Society always makes both sides at once. And what, in essence is 'society'? I feel it would be a good start to first define that term. I also don't really agree that worldly comforts and securities are a necessary prerequisite for coming to see things as they are. It may help some, it may work against them.
very interesting topic, thank you!
It’s nice to have vids (yours) that are spontaneous and get to the point and don’t have the need to fill space unnecessarily
You could also address the internal desire for mayhem.
@@delec9665 mayhem is on the list thanks
Personally, I think it's rooted in the (collective) desire to escape the (apparent) prison of the (illusion of the) ego...to go "home" to that state of liberation that is the fundamental nature of all things beneath surface appearances and contrived borders... to return to silence/peace. I think we yearn for that reunion with "source" that we (feel like we've) lost as part of the bargain when we "gained" the notion of individuality along with all those associated false distinctions. We love to play as if we're separate beings, but that game comes with its own pains in the yin/yang balance of all things.
This is kinda how I see it too, and he does allude to that in the vid. I don't think people actually want a real apocalypse. At least not deep down.
I know this is off topic, but this came up again and this time I saw the answer quite simply:
"Can God make a rock so heavy that he himself cannot lift it?"
Let Descartes and Acquinas argue all they want but, as Mona Lisa Vito would say, "It's a bullshit question."
The question assumes 'two absolutes'. There is only One Absolute (or it wouldn't be absolute in the first place).
The question is predicated on a division that isn't there,
then pits the 'sides' against 'each other', which don't ultimately exist, and this can only result in a fundamentally futile game.
Just like 'War Games'.
For one to say, "There are no absolutes", is correct - there are no absolutes, plural.
For one to say, "There is no absolute" is a misunderstanding of one's own statement.
The statement itself directly points to that which is Absolute.
The only way to win is to not play.....or to play as if winning is just a game.
I resonate with much of what you say in regards to society and government being a work of fiction. But I don't think we really want to go back to the "reality" of Nature. Most of us have 0 compatibility with Nature, and will have an incredibly difficult time adapting. I concur that society is an illusion, but it is an illusion that spares us from some of the brutality of the natural world. The suffering that comes from being eaten alive, starving to death, disease, and warrior castes.
Without the illusion of society, I doubt the sages would've been able to come to their insights. Protection, language, and order have proven necessary to create a shell around people. That shell of protection can complicate things for sure, but it also gives them the time and safety to really self-reflect. Hopefully those people can become wiser during that time. If they feel called to it, some of these yogis can become mountain hermits. But most people, even monastics, are not capable of this lifestyle.
I'll take it a step further: I notice in the eastern philosophy communities, there is this idea that ego is the source of suffering. However, there is some talk in Buddhist and Gnostic communities that disagree with this. Suffering is deeply embedded in our "fabric". It is embedded within Nature herself.
The human ego may use language or barely formed thoughts to conceptualize "I am suffering". However, the true "I" thought may not actually be located in language. Some, including myself, have experienced the ownership "I" as a primal instinct that is beyond language. I'm convinced that animals and plants have this too, hence why both seem to suffer immensely at death. If you've ever worked with farm animals when it's time for them to be harvested, you'll know exactly what I'm talking about.
This is all to say: in my opinion, a real-world apocalypse is not the answer. A lot of people seem to want society to come to an end, because of the suffering it brings. But most of these folks haven't lived close enough to the natural world to understand the gravity of that. What will have to be sacrificed.
Going back to Nature is not the answer. Both society and Nature are embedded with illusion, possibly on a genetic level. Illusory or not, societal order must be upheld. External chaos should only be welcomed in small controllable doses, and only in ways that can integrate into society to make it better. In the meantime; we can work on bringing an internal apocalypse to ourselves, while doing our best to be compassionate to our fellow man, beast, and plant.
Great comment, and I agree....it isn't time to turn back time even if we may play that out with end of the world movies. Our time is to recognize the illusion but learn to live with it just not take it seriously. Be it the "self" or "society," it's all made up....perhaps it is enough to simply recognize this?
Question - why do you associate society with technology? Society being 'the psycho-social program' of the collective mind, while creativity and technology, are not. In other words, is it possible that this is a false pairing?
We need functional organizations but only so far as they are purely functional, and do not leech into divisive ideologies.
@@cruksi7001 no problem with functional organizations imo as long as we recognize them as useful fictions
@@chris5264 Your last point is eye-opening for me; maybe it is enough simply to recognize the illusion and not take it so seriously!
I must respectfully disagree with the blanket statement 'Going back to nature is not the answer'.
It makes a hard polarization between society and nature.
Not to mention that society around the world is full of brutality, people starving to death, disease and certainly warrior casts.
Society always makes both sides at once.
And what, in essence is 'society'? I feel it would be a good start to first define that term.
I also don't really agree that worldly comforts and securities are a necessary prerequisite for coming to see things as they are.
It may help some, it may work against them.