could you discribe it further or more in-depth then "feeling of being blown away"? I ask as I dont think I have has such an experience (unless it went right over my head, so to speak) ....."awareness of awareness" is as confusing to me as "thinking about nothing".

Aleksander,
I guess by "being blown away," I mean feeling amazed that this world exists at all. Feeling astounded that I am an aware being, and that sort of thing. I hope that helps. I'm not sure if it's even really philosophy. I think it's a form of contemplation.
-Scott

like seeing the big picture that is this world we live in, and thus feeling small and insignificant?

It's kind of like that, or feeling amazed that this world exists at all! Or being astounded, that you exist at all.

Are there any books about this? I think any book about it would have to be short, because there isn't that much to say. Or maybe there's more to say than I think, because of all the questions it to which it can lead. Why am I here? and stuff like that. It wouldn't be about answering the questions (that would be religion!), but about just being in that state of not-knowing. — ScottVal

I think you may appreciate Heidegger's Introduction to Metaphysics, although it can be tough going if you're not at all familiar with his jargon. He meditates on this very issue you raise and then relates it to our current situation in the modern West, which is characterized by a lack of wonder and a concomitant narrowed down relationship towards beings - human beings included - as "nothing more" than calculable, exploitable resources.

Being & Time is very interesting.
I enjoy his idea of anxiety, as well as Sartre's, in the midst of a fight for authenticity...

I'm not even sure what branch of philosophy this is; I stuck it in "mind" for lack of something better. Maybe it's metaphysics, or not philosophy at all. Psychology? — ScottVal

It's more common in Eastern philosophies to take account of the sort of thing you're talking about, and talk about it openly but it's not completely unknown in the West (most of the great philosophers have waxed mystical at one time or other, it's just that they haven't systematized it as much as, say, the Buddhists or the Advaitins or Daoists).

Being & Time is very interesting.
I enjoy his idea of anxiety, as well as Sartre's, in the midst of a fight for authenticity... — Blue Lux

I agree. I'd also suggest reading his "post-turn" Letter on Humanism to see where he departs from Sartre and existentialism more generally.

I tried reading Heidegger's Metaphysics many years ago. It was tough going, and there was some conjecture that he was a Nazi, so I didn't get very far. Maybe I'll give it another try. I'll also look at Being and Time.

I mentioned Zen, and you guys (esp. gurugeorge) speak of how this kind of discussion seems more accepted in the East. I think reading Zen materials can be pertinent, but it can be hard to get to the real "bone" of Zen philosophy and separate it from the Buddhist rituals, which don't interest me so much.

it can be hard to get to the real "bone" of Zen philosophy and separate it from the Buddhist rituals, which don't interest me so much — ScottVal

The problem is that "Zen" is "Zen Buddhism", so it's a bit difficult to filter out the "Buddhism" bit. :wink: Zen is a mixture of Buddhism and Taoism. Maybe looking at Taoism might interest you more? :chin:

Heidegger's philosophy has nothing to do with Fascism. His thoughts could change anyone's ideas about existence.

There can also be a feeling that it's amazing that I (or you, or the world) exists at all.

.
Most definitely. It’s astonishing that we’re in a life. …that there’s this life, and that there’s this world (this physical world, and whatever else there is).
.
It’s been pointed out that, ultimately, there’s no explanation…that, as we pursue explanation, we reach a point at which there’s no explanation. Reality isn’t describable or explainable.
.
But, in the physical world, lots of things are physically explainable in terms of other physical things. Likewise in verbal metaphysics of the describable, what describably is can be explained within the terms and context of describable metaphysics.
.
All we know about our surroundings is what we experience. I suggest that, at the highest boundary of what’s barely describable or assertable, Consciousness, the experiencer (That’s us) , is primary, metaphysically prior to all else in the describable realm.
.
…and that’s pushing it a bit, to presume to say even that much, to describe or assert that far.
.
Just as there’s physical mechanism for this physical universes, and for us as animals in it, so there’s likewise logical metaphysical mechanism for us and our physical world in the describable metaphysical realm.
.
I emphasize that, as Consciousness, we’re primary and metaphysically prior to everything else in the describable realm.
.
Here’s the logical mechanism that I suggest:
.
Uncontroversially, there are abstract facts, including abstract implications, at least in the sense that we can mention them.
.
By an “implication”, I refer to an implying of one proposition by another proposition. It’s a logical thing.
.
Likewise, then, there are infinitely-many hypothetical complex inter-referring systems of abstract implications about hypothetical propositions about hypothetical things, with the infinitely-many mutually-consistent configurations for the hypothetical truth-values of those hypothetical propositions.
.
For example:
.
A set of hypothetical physical quantity-values, and a hypothetical relation among them (called a “physical law, theory or hypothesis”) constitute the antecedent of an implication. …except that one of those hypothetical physical quantity-values can be taken as the consequent of that implication.
.
A true mathematical theorem is an implication whose antecedent consists of at least a set of mathematical axioms.
.
Among the infinity of such hypothetical complex systems of inter-referring abstract implications, there inevitably is one that models your experience. There’s no reason to believe that, in terms of metaphysical mechanics, your experience is other than that hypothetical logical system.
.
I make no claim about the existence or reality of that hypothetical logical system, or of this physical world.
.
I re-emphasize that I suggest that Consciousness (us) is primary among the describable things, and is metaphysically prior to the other describable things. …and at the upper, outer boundary of describability.
.
The hypothetical logical system that I described above is just the metaphysical mechanics of our experience in a physical world, just as physics describes the physical mechanics of a physical world, and of us as animals in that physical world.
---------------------------
As for why you’re in a life, the metaphysical mechanics of that, too, is explained by the above discussion.
.
I mentioned above that, among the infinity of hypothetical logical systems that I described, there inevitably is one that models your experience. …one whose events and relations are those of your experience. There’s no reason to believe that your experience is other than that. I call that system your “hypothetical life-experience story”.
.
You’re the protagonist of one of that infinity of hypothetical life-experience stories. You’re in this life because you’re the person that story is about. …the person who who is that story’s protagonist. …the person whose experience that story is.
.
You and your surroundings are complementary to eachother in that hypothetical story.
.
But, again, that’s just the metaphysical mechanics, the explanation at the metaphysical level.
.
As I’ve said, I suggest that Consciousness, we persons and other animals, is what’s primary and metaphysically-prior, among what’s describable and explainable. …the things that verbal describable metaphysics is about.
.
Why are we? Well, as the experiencer of our life, we aren’t lacking a metaphysical mechanics explanation, as I described above. Do you need more explanation of us? We’re explained at the metaphysical level (by metaphysics), just as we are at the physical level (by physics and biology).
.
If anything about us remains unexplained, it isn’t physical or metaphysical, because that’s explained.
.
So in what other way could it be said that we need an explanation? All of our experience is during a life, or of the final, timeless, identity-less end of lives. Both of those are part of a life. So there’s no need to explain us apart from the physical and describable-metaphysical explanation of our hypothetical life-experience-story.
.
…even though, in that system, there’s something primary about us, as what makes it relevant to someone. …as the person or other animal that it’s for. …as what Schopenhauer called “the Will to Life”. …the basis of the whole thing, in a meaningful sense.
.
Yes, there are also hypothetical objective world-stories about lifeless physical universes too. For whom are those stories? Not for anyone. They aren’t about anyone’s experience. In fact that’s true of any hypothetical objective world-story, whether the universe it’s about is lifeless or not. That story isn’t anyone’s experience, because it’s a world-story, not an experience-story.
.
Surely anyone would agree that a world-story, then, has a lower order of reality or existence than an experience story (however little reality or existence an experience-story has).
.

One can contemplate the possibility that the world never came into being at all

.
But not if this physical world is just one of the two complementary parts of your hypothetical life-experience story.
.
…because it consists of hypothetical abstract implications, which there uncontroversially are, in the sense that we can mention them.
.
Because they uncontroversially are, there’s no question of why they’re there. There couldn’t have not been them.
.
It has been pointed out that if there were no facts, then it would be a fact that there are no facts.
.
Someone else replied that there could have been a fact that there are no facts other than that one fact that there are no other facts.
.
But, for one thing, that would be a brute-fact. …calling for, but not having, an explanation.
.
For another thing, for that one special fact to have the jurisdiction or authority to ban all other facts, there’d have to be some sort of continuum in which all facts reside, affected by eachother.
.
But a hypothetical logical systems such as those that I describe need only be real in its own inter-referring context. …quite isolated from and independent of any other other, outside, context or permission. …not requiring any larger medium or context. …like some kind of potting-soil.
.
So, in terms of describable-metaphysical mechanics, why is there something instead of nothing? Because there couldn’t have not been.
.

I'm not even sure what branch of philosophy this is; I stuck it in "mind" for lack of something better. Maybe it's metaphysics

.
That’s what I’d call it.
.

Are there any books about this? I think any book about it would have to be short, because there isn't that much to say.

.
Yes, exactly. But Western academic philosophy is extraordinarily long-winded. Why is that? Well, you’ve heard the academic saying, “Publish or Perish”. So, the job of academic philosophers is to turn out reams and reams of publication, industriously piling confusion upon confusion, ensuring a safe publishing-future full of unanswered questions that they can debate forever.
.
Did I make that up? Chalmers has pointed out that the (fallacious (my added word) ) “Hard Problem Of Consciousness” has been argued about for centuries, and isn’t showing any signs of resolution in the next several centuries.
.

Or maybe there's more to say than I think,

.
No, you were right.
.

…because of all the questions it to which it can lead.

.
Well yes, a lot can be said and asked about something that, of itself, isn’t as wordy.
.

Why am I here?

.
That’s something that I tried to address above, at least as far as possible.
.

…and stuff like that. It wouldn't be about answering the questions (that would be religion!), but about just being in that state of not-knowing.

.
Sure, when you pursue explanation, you get to where there’s no further explanation.
.
It’s said, and I agree, that Reality isn’t explainable or describable.
.

I had first had this experience when I was about fourteen, and had that feeling of being blown away, that I (we, the world) exist at all.

.
The (part-way) explanations for that don’t make it any less astonishing.
.
Michael Ossipoff

Good stuff, but the issue I may have with consciousness being primary is that the physical universe came first; a lifeless universe. Then life appeared at some point, yada yada, ultimately my parents appeared, finally I was conceived, my brain developed, my mind developed, and my consciousness developed. So how is it primary?

The issue I may have with consciousness being primary is that the physical universe came first; a lifeless universe. Then life appeared at some point, yada yada, ultimately my parents appeared, finally I was conceived, my brain developed, my mind developed, and my consciousness developed. So how is it primary?

.
All that you know about this physical world is via your experience.
.
The one requirement for your life-experience-story is that it be consistent. That’s because it’s composed of abstract implications, which are abstract facts, and there’s no such thing as mutually-inconsistent facts.
.
And so your experience must be consistent with your being here.
.
And that means that your experience of your physical surroundings, your experience of the physical world that you’re in, must be an experience of a world that produced you.
.
That’s why you have parents. That’s why there’s a species that you belong to. That’s why there’s this habitable planet, this solar system, this galaxy, and this universe. Because, in order for you to be here, and for there to be this life-experience-story of your experience, then there must be a physical world that physically produced you.
.
What started all this? The fact that, among all of the infinity of hypothetical abstract facts, there timelessly is a hypothetical logical system that I call your life-experience-story, with you as its protagonist.
.
…and with you complementary with a physical world that is consistent with there being you and your life.
.
So yes, your experience is of parents and a universe that there were, before you were born. But consistency requires that there be those, in your experience-story.
.
I’ll send this short-version now, rather than delay this reply.
.
But if I’ve said anything that leads to any objections or questions, let me know.
.
Also, there may be other clarifying-comments that I can add.
.
Michael Ossipoff

https://www.dropbox.com/s/husbhk9r9ldejrn/One%20with%20I%20in%20its%20eye%20%282%29.pdf%20-%20Copy.docx?dl=0 :)

Hearty, :cool:

Michael,
This reminds me of the idea that I am the creator of my own reality, and this universe I create has to be consistent, etc., etc.; isn't that solipsism? It also reminds me of the pop-metaphysics-spirituality of Jane Roberts (1929-84) and others.

This reminds me of the idea that I am the creator of my own reality — ScottVal

Sure, but I wouldn't word it that way. What's uncontroversial is that there timelessly is the hypothetical logical system consisting of your experience-story. Sure the story's protagonist is central to that story, and could be called the basis of it, without which there wouldn't be an experience-story.

, and this universe I create has to be consistent

Of course, for the reason that I discussed.

And that means that your experience won't be inconsistent with there having been events in this physical world, before your birth, that would result in you.

Otherwise your experience would be inconsistent with itself.

, etc., etc.; isn't that solipsism?

When that objection was first voiced, I looked up "Solipsism", and found that what I'm saying fits some, but not all, definitions of "Solipsism".

But naming something doesn't discredit it.

Tautologically, your experience is subjective. Call Subjectivism "Solipsism" if you want to. But, whatever names we use, it remains that everything that you know about your surroundings and this physical world is via your experience.

It also reminds me of the pop-metaphysics-spirituality of Jane Roberts (1929-84) and others.

I'm not familiar with her writing, but I'm glad that it was popular, and I'm not surprised to hear that others have said what I'm saying. That certainly doesn't discredit it.

And, though Vedanta includes religion as well as describable-metaphysics, its describable-metaphysics sounds a lot like what I've been discussing. I don't argue with its religion, but it's just a matter on which it's difficult to say much.

So I don't claim complete originality.

The physicist Michael Faraday, in 1844, introduced Ontic Structuralism in the West. Before that, near the beginning of the 19th century, Schopenhauer discussed the centrality and primacy of "Will to Life".

Michael Ossipoff

I guess it's kind of trendy to say "I am the creator of my reality," but I agree that the wording is a bit disagreeable! It's true to say that the only thing I know is my own experience. I agree that naming something (like Solipsism) doesn't discredit it; it wasn't my intention to discredit what you were saying.

As you said, it's difficult to say much about this matter, but I feel it's important to occasionally just notice that I/we/the world exist, and how astounding that is. I cannot do this all the time; I feel I just don't have enough mental energy for that. It's like a wave, in which I spend most of my time doing mundane activities, and occasionally come up to the top of the wave, which is when I bask in that awareness of existence. I can imagine making some sort of game of this, to try to do this more often, or using some kind of memory aids to remind myself to rise up and have this experience.

Sometimes I'll say to my wife, "isn't it astounding, that we exist at all?" And she'll say, "someone's been smoking weed." But she's just kidding; she knows what I'm talking about. Sometimes she'll say, "if we exist. Maybe we don't really exist." She's such a kidder.

I like to think that if I knew I was dying soon, I would have this experience a lot more often. But, in a way, we're all dying soon.
-Scott V.

Good stuff, but the issue I may have with consciousness being primary is that the physical universe came first; a lifeless universe. Then life appeared at some point, yada yada, ultimately my parents appeared, finally I was conceived, my brain developed, my mind developed, and my consciousness developed. So how is it primary? — ScottVal

Does it not seem to be maybe just a bit of a leap of faith to consider that consciousness 'came from' nonconsciousness?

Sartre says being is uncreated. Sartre says the notion of a subjectivity, even a divine subjectivity, begetting the objective is absolutely absurd, for a subjectivity could not have even the representation of an objectivity so to be affected with the will to create it...

Consciousness is primary because it is the "condition of all revelation."

To be in awe at the fact of existence requires an existence in place already... And so one is not really in awe as much as they are captivated by aspects of existence that relate to something desirable.

I agree that it is somewhat absurd (a bit of a leap of faith) to believe that consciousness came from non-consciousness. You seem to be also saying the opposite, that it is absurd to consider consciousness (subjectivity) begetting the objective (non-consciousness).

Then you say that consciousness is primary, because it is the condition of all revelation, which makes sense to me. I draw from all these things that all we can say is that we experience x and experience y, but that cannot lead us to conclude that these things are objective? This also reminds me of how quantum physicists, as they delve deeper and deeper into the "stuff" of which the universe is supposedly made, these physicists sometimes start to sound like spiritualists? Or it makes me think, if you and I agree that there is a Moon in the sky, but it's not "really" there (as an objective entity), but is just something about which we agree?

I also agree that there were a lot of prerequisites to "being in awe at the fact of existence": The universe had to already exist, I had to exist, I had to have a functioning mind, which implies the pre-requisite of time and language and society and thought. And the idea that I am captivated by aspects of existence which relate to something desirable makes sense to me, as I probably would not be so much in awe of existence if I were locked up in a small cell, or in some other state of severe suffering.

I agree that it is somewhat absurd (a bit of a leap of faith) to believe that consciousness came from non-consciousness. You seem to be also saying the opposite, that it is absurd to consider consciousness (subjectivity) begetting the objective (non-consciousness). — ScottVal

Actually what I would say, in terms of existentialism, there is no use for the dualism of subject and object at all. By virtue of the fact that consciousness is always consciousness of something, what would have been a subject (ego) in relation to an object has been reconciled. In other words, instead of a reference of subject relating to object, consciousness has been shown to be, according to this assertion (consciousness is always consciousness of something it is not), fundamentally a relationality, and a connection with the world, as opposed to something behind the scenes experiencing a world that is separate. There is no being behind the appearance. The appearance is an interaction of being, and the 'object of consciousness' is, in a sense, consciousness itself.

By virtue of the fact that consciousness is always consciousness of something, — Blue Lux

In psychological terms, consciousness is consciousness of 7±2 of items of something...

In philosophical terms, consciousness is psychological consciousness + nonconsciousness and is almost infinite...

Did you read my short story? It covers pretty much philosophical consciousness... :)

Enjoy the day, :cool:

Yes, I'm familiar with this idea of non-dualism; one way of expressing it might be that when "I" look at "something" it is really the universe looking at itself? And yes, Damir, I read your story. Thanks to both of you for reminding me of these things.

.
I guess it's kind of trendy to say "I am the creator of my reality," but I agree that the wording is a bit disagreeable!

.
Well it’s probably misleading, because there’s a sense in which we find ourselves in our situations that aren’t entirely of our own making. In fact, consider how bewildering the first day of life must have been. How must that have seemed? Of course I don’t remember.
.
I often say that our world is because of us, because it’s the story whose protagonist we are, and it’s in some way consistent with who we are, but, if we could make it up and choose how it is, of course we might make a few changes. For example, I don’t agree with those who say that our choice of parents and world were voluntary.
-----------------------------------
Yes, and the astonishingness of being in a life at all isn’t lessened by its metaphysical explanation, any more than by its bio-physical explanation. Sometimes I mention that astonishingness, but I don’t think that most people know what I mean. Sometimes here, the answer I get is, “That doesn’t prove your metaphysics.” No, but one thing that it proves is that, if my metaphysical proposal sounds incredible, it’s no more incredible than this life already is. And I suggest that Materialism, which we’re so used to as the standard doctrine, is less supportable.
.
There’s a movie-scene that stands out, in regard to that matter. In Wolf, with Jack Nicholson and Michelle Pfeiffer, Nicholson’s character goes to see the old, probably Transylvanian, character named Vijab Alezaius, and when Alezaius confirms what Nicholson suspected about his predicament, Nicholson says something like, “Surely you don’t believe that”, and then Alezaius points out some the remarkable and incredible things we take for granted because we’re used to them. That scene reminds me about that, and I often say, “He has a point, you know.” It’s not often that we hear something like that in a movie, even if it’s said in support of the fictional supernatural.
.

So yes, that astoundingness often occurs to me often too. People reasonably object to my metaphysical explanation because obviously the mystery remains, and so I can’t call it a complete explanation, and, as I often say, I don’t believe that Reality is explainable.
.
But I feel that it’s desirable and possible to avoid brute-facts and assumptions at the physical and metaphysical levels. No one anymore expects brute facts (…other than the Materialist’s big brute-fact), or contraventions of established physical law, at the physical level. Then why expect a brute-fact at the verbal, describable metaphysical level? However unexplainable it all must ultimately be, that doesn’t mean it has to not make sense logically at the describable level.
.
Materialism posits a brute-fact at the physical and metaphysical levels, and that isn’t necessary.
-----------------------------------------
Maybe I didn’t fully answer what you said in regards to how Consciousness could be primary, when we’re a product of the physical world.
.
As I mentioned, this physical world that we’re the product of is part of a complementarity consisting of us the experiencer, and our “physical” surroundings, the setting of our experience-story.
.
As such, because there are no mutually-inconsistent facts, our experience mustn’t be inconsistent with there having been physical events, before our birth, leading to our birth. Those events include such things as the day our parents met, and the formation of the Earth, etc.
.
Did those things happen? It’s an experience story, and those things obviously didn’t happen in our experience. But our experience can’t be inconsistent with there having been physical events that produced us.
.
Conventionally we say that those things did happen, in the sense that our experience can’t be inconsistent with such things having happened in the physical world that is the setting for our experience-story.
.
But really all that we know is from our experience, and there’s no reason to say that we and our experience aren’t central and primary.
.
If someone advocates Materialism, then ask them why there’s this Material world.
.
Regarding uncontroversially inevitable systems of abstract facts: As I mentioned, there of course are 1) objective world-stories; and 2) there are subjective experience-stories. Which of those is about your experience? Which of those is of and for you? Which is what you perceive?
.
So:

1. The systems of abstract facts are inevitable, and they include objective world-stories and subjective experience-stories.
.
2. Among those, a subjective story is your experience.
------------------------------------
Yes, these matters are especially of interest due to the undeniable temporariness of this life. Because this life is going to reach an end, it’s of interest what else there is, and what it’s going to be like when that time arrives, as it undeniably will.
.
Someone could say “You want there to be something else, but that’s wishful-thinking, that there’s something other than this life.” Well, if there’s one thing for sure, it’s that this life is going to end, and undeniably this particular phase is followed by something other than itself. It’s therefore of interest, and reasonable to discuss, what else there is, and what the end of this temporary phase will be like.
.
Michael Ossipoff

I agree it's misleading to say "I am the creator of my reality." It's fashionable in certain spiritualist circles to say this. Just because I am the protagonist of my story doesn't mean I was in control of everything which happened or everything which will happen. I guess in a looser sense you can say you created your world, in the sense that you made your life what it is out of the raw materials you were given. But even that is debatable!

I'm glad you see and feel how astounding it is, that this world exists, and I agree that it is hard to find people willing to talk about this. It's great to find a kindred spirit. It should not matter what belief system you follow, it is still amazing that any of this exists at all. Unfortunately certain fanatical religions may have the effect of dulling one's mind to the wonder of it all. I haven't seen "Wolf," but I'll try to check it out.

I like the idea that "each" of us is a point of view whereby the universe obverses itself, "feels" itself from the inside, experiences itself. And I like the idea that each point of view provides a different story. And within each story we can feel that amazement, that all of this can possibly exist. Maybe that is the highest experience you can have, even if you have an out-of-body experience, or if you are a super-hero, or a super-celebrity, or a mega-billionaire, or live beyond death, you can still be amazed that any of this exists at all.

I didn’t find your posting till just now. I’m replying immediately after finding it.
.
When replying, one should click on the right-angle-bent arrow icon at the bottom of the message that you’re replying to. That sends an e-mail notification to the person you’re replying to. I didn’t know that there was a reply. Today it occurred to me to check the Awareness thread in case there might be a reply, though there wasn’t an e-mail notification.
.
Ordinarily, one would click that reply-icon when the curser is at the top of the reply-editing space. If you’re doing the writing at the forum writing-space, then just click the bent-arrow icon at the bottom of the post you’re replying to, and the writing-screen will appear, with the name of the person you’re replying to at the top of the writing-space.
.
Or, if you’re writing in Word, as I often do, and then pasting the reply into the forum writing-space, then, after I paste it, I place the curser at the top of the writing-page, and then I scroll up, to find one of your posts (it doesn’t matter which one), and click the reply-icon at the bottom of the message. That places your log-in name at the top of my writing-space, and sends a notification to you.
.
If you’re doing your writing at the forum writing-space (at the bottom of the thread), and if you want to quote some text that you’re replying to, then highlight it, and (if you’re logged-in) a black rectangle that says “quote” will appear. Click on it, and the writing-screen will appear, with the text that you’re quoting in that space, indented, with large quote-marks around it.
.
But suppose you’re doing the writing in Word, but you want to quote text? Just highlight the entire message that you’re replying to, and paste it into Word. Then, for each section that you want to quote, place ]quote[ (but with the brackets not reversed) above that section, and ]/quote[ below that section. (likewise with the brackets not reversed)
.
Those quotation-tags, will be interpreted by the forum by that section of text being indented and enclosed in large quote-marks—as if you’d highlighted it and clicked the black “quote” rectangle.
.
I haven’t had good success with nested quotes here, so if something that I said is quoted in the text that I’m quoting, then I just put those quote tags above and below the whole thing, as described above, and then, I put “ “ marks around the part in which I’m being quoted, and I put ]i[ in front of it, and ]/i[ after it (bug with the brackets not reversed), to italicize it, helpng to distinguish it as something that I said.
.
For any but the shortest replies, I like to write in Word, where it’s easy to stop work, save it, and later resume. Besides, if there’s some computer problem or Internet problem during writing, that problem is less likely to result in lost work. And no such problem is likely to happen during the short time that it takes to paste the reply into the forum writing-space, and click “submit”.
.
Oh, and one other thing. Sometimes (I don’t know if this will happen when you post from word, but it might) when you copy and paste from Word, into the forum writing-space, the paragraphs will all be run together, without the blank paragraph-spaces that you had in your message in Word.
.
Try it once, to find out if that happens. If it does, then you merely have to type a period at the beginning of each blank paragraph-spacing line in your message before you copy and paste it. The period is a place-holder that prevents that blank line from being deleted.
.
For example, this reply is from Word.
.

I agree it's misleading to say "I am the creator of my reality." It's fashionable in certain spiritualist circles to say this. Just because I am the protagonist of my story doesn't mean I was in control of everything which happened or everything which will happen.

.
Quite so. Your subconscious Will to Life, and your subconscious inclinations, predispositions, determine your next life (or your first one, when there hasn’t been one yet). There isn’t conscious choice in the matter of the world of your birth.
.

I guess in a looser sense you can say you created your world, in the sense that you made your life what it is out of the raw materials you were given. But even that is debatable!

.
Sure, there’s a limit to what you can do. For example, this societal world isn’t going to be made into a better one. So the best that we can do is just quietly and peacefully live out our lives, staying out of the way of the rulers.
.
Some people have a lot of complaint about their birth in this world, or about being in a life at all. Quite pointless. I tell them to just make the best of it. …and point out that we’re the reason for our being in a life, and we’re the reason for the kind of world we’re born in.

.

I'm glad you see and feel how astounding it is, that this world exists, and I agree that it is hard to find people willing to talk about this. It's great to find a kindred spirit. It should not matter what belief system you follow, it is still amazing that any of this exists at all.

.
Absolutely.
.

Unfortunately certain fanatical religions may have the effect of dulling one's mind to the wonder of it all.

.
Yes, it’s regrettable, but, as we’ve all found out, trying to talk to a door-to-door proselytizing Biblical-Literalist (I won’t name the door-to-door denominations, because you know what they are. These days only one of them seems to be causing nuisance anymore.) is as hopeless and pointless as trying to talk to a Dogmatic Materialist at this forum.
.
I don’t recommend attempting either.
.

I haven't seen "Wolf," but I'll try to check it out.

.
It’s a good movie. You’ll like it. The scene I refer to is the one in which Will (Nicholson’s character) visits Vijab Alezais to ask about his wolf-transformation predicament.
.
Well, with most movies, especially most scary movies, the part that I like is the beginning, the way the movie’s situation comes about. The scary-action part doesn’t interest me—well maybe a little, the first time I watch the movie. In Wolf, the concluding scary-action scene, a dogfight between two werewolves, doesn’t do anything for me, but I have to admit that parts of it realistically resemble a dogfight.
.

I like the idea that "each" of us is a point of view whereby the universe obverses itself, "feels" itself from the inside, experiences itself.

.
Yes, each of us is complementary to our physical surroundings, in the life-experience-story of which we’re the central, primary, and metaphysically-prior component, as the story’s protagonist.
.

And I like the idea that each point of view provides a different story.

.
…and a different story in each of our subsequent lives, until, after a very great many lives, the person is life-completed and lifestyle-perfected, and their life ends with only peaceful, quiet rest and sleep.
.

And within each story we can feel that amazement, that all of this can possibly exist. Maybe that is the highest experience you can have, even if you have an out-of-body experience, or if you are a super-hero, or a super-celebrity, or a mega-billionaire, or live beyond death, you can still be amazed that any of this exists at all.

.
Agreed, that’s miraculous and astonishing.
.
As I mentioned above, some people at this forum resent their being in a life, but, aside from our want or need for life being the reason for it—even if someone is a Materialist and doesn’t agree with that—the fact remains that we’re here, and one might as well like it and explore it. I mean, what alternative is there.
.
Anyway, a life is temporary, and our finite sequence of lives is temporary too. …in contrast to the rest and sleep at the end-of-lives. So--especially if one agrees that we’re here because we wanted to, or felt that we needed to--one might as well complete our lives, go easy and enjoy the play (“Lila”, in Sanskrit), and perfect our lifestyle, because what else is there to do anyway.
.
Michael Ossipoff

Heck, even Daoism is much more intimately connected with particular ritual and praxis than people think. The idea of a pristine "philosophical" Daoism versus the messy, woo-woo "religious Daoism" is now thought to be largely a bogus artifact of the fact that the early Protestant interlocutors of Daoism got most of their information about it from Confucian scholars!

The "magical" and political aspects of these things have always tended to be quite mixed in with the philosophical elements.

It was actually so in the West as well at one time - philosophers like Parmenides and Empedocles are more like Eastern guru figures, or Western occultists doing ritual magic, etc., than they are like Bertrand Russell expatiating from his armchair smoking a pipe :)

But there is definitely a common thread of "non-dual" philosophy in the Eastern systems - and funnily enough, Alan Watts was one of the first to really get it right.

Alan Watts is an odd one, because he's often the author who first piques the interest of Westerners in things Eastern, but then when one gets more deeply into the authentic traditions, one leaves him behind and one may even pooh-pooh him as "simplistic." But actually, when you come out the other end, you realize he actually did pretty much get it right after all! :)

For example, here's one of Watts' incredibly profound nuggets:"If you can agree that you are not separated from reality, then you must agree that your 'self'-awareness is also reality's awareness of itself."

This is actually the root of the to and fro in both the East and West around the Big Questions. It seems like consciousness is a personal thing that's rooted in, or otherwise somehow metaphysically tethered to the body.

But what if one's consciousness is actually impersonal, a cosmic event? What if one's thoughts (the images, words, etc., that pass before the mind's eye) are no more personal, belong no more to just this body, than a flight of geese across the sky?