Thank you so much. Very chuffed that you took the time. And yeah, it has been up and down, which can be discouraging, but that said, it's very heart warming to hear stories like this. So thank you again :)
Ask yourselves: if you could live forever, getting wiser & more powerful, would you give up all the memories & personality that make you who you are to do that? We each go as far as we can. To go farther is to no longer be us. In this world, at least, we are finite. tavi.
That’s exactly the conclusion I came to. If we are eternal, there is no way to hold onto the meaningful experiences of each lifetime we have led. It loses its meaning outside of that particular life. So, ultimately, our lives are meaningless.
Precisely! I agree with you both. However, I wouldn’t say that our lives are therefore ultimately meaningless-as meaning is also an aspect of the finite. It’s synonymous with the perspective held by that finite self. therefore the “ultimate” that lies beyond this frame cannot be considered “meaninglessness”, as meaninglessness is only relevant in the context of meaning. So it too must be an aspect of finite perspective. Let me know if you disagree, but I would suggest that the consideration should be that which is beyond finite meaning/meaninglessness, whilst at the same time whole with it, just as the whole is all encompassing of that self.
During my near death experience, I felt that my self was actually getting more intense, as if my physicality had so far held me back from being truly and fully myself.
That’s very interesting, and I’m sure many people who have had similar experiences would say similar things. It also sounds somewhat similar to the psychedelic experience, in that it feels more real than real, and that the physical domain is in fact a shallow understanding. But I’m intrigued to know, what then would you presume this true ‘self’ to be? It seems much more than the self of daily consciousness by your description, but I wonder, does this make you feel more identified with “the self” and so less of nature as a whole, or is it the opposite?
Idk why but I think we are nothing more than the algorithm of the brain and we are not the source consciousness...I think what makes us "us" as individuals are merely filters of consciousness. People who exist have consciousness but what makes them them is that algorithm and not the source.
I think a lot of people who follow my channel feel the same way as you do, though philosophy shouldn’t ever assume the existence of something without justifying reason. Which is why I’m hesitant to jump in too willingly. I actually posted a piece on this topic (questioning the Idealistic point of view) that you may enjoy… ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-R1m0rxbTpvU.htmlsi=qlM4eXHZXsb9C2GY I personally have mixed feelings about it. As, though I agree with certain aspects of what you’re saying, I’m not so sure we can justify it before we can state what consciousness is. What would your definition of consciousness be?
The self does not seem to end - it seems to go on forever and learns more and more between lifetimes. I think that Ole Dammegard´s interpretations of the self and karma best sum it up what the self is all about.
@@Yatukih_001 I’m not familiar with Ole Dammegards work, but it’s an interesting take. Though I do wonder, if we are collectively improving, shouldn’t that mean that humanity would improve decade by decade? Shouldn’t we have a higher emotional intelligence now than ever before in history? And also, how do we account for the growing population count? If lives are eternally reincarnated, where do these new people come from? Cheers for sharing!
