As I said, I am not a trained lawyer. — TimeLine

Did you attend law school? :s Or did you not? If you have attended law school, then you are trained as a lawyer, whether you've ever practiced as one or not.

If you have attended law school, then you are trained as a lawyer — Agustino

Really? Apparently, you know everything and are not just some screaming lunatic.

Really? — TimeLine

Yes, that's what law school is for, to train you as a lawyer.

Apparently, you know everything and are not just some screaming lunatic. — TimeLine

The statement you quoted is a logical conditional, so I'm not sure what you mean. And I'm neither a lunatic, nor screaming, I'm just asking you a few questions, which you seem to be purposefully avoiding.

Yes, that's what law school is for, to train you as a lawyer. — Agustino

Is it?

And I'm neither a lunatic, nor screaming, I'm just asking you a few questions. — Agustino

Re-read your ridiculous posts; if you had an ounce of reason, you would see through what I was writing to ascertain the point of transcendental idealism but you are too arrogant and in your agitation and aggression say harsh and nasty things to people who are simply having a discussion. This is a forum, a place for people to talk and not to write essays and delve into topics that some people may or may not understand. I am talking to someone else, not you, and I am trying to talk as simple as I can.

Sure, I may make mistakes with my writing that can lead to being misunderstood, but having you stalk my every post and say the same thing over and over and over again about Trump and me saying 'authentic', it is not hard to think you are a lunatic. You ruin peoples threads and morale. A whinging, self-righteous little child.

Is it? — TimeLine

No no, it totally isn't, I guess it's there to train you to be a plumber... :-}

Re-read your ridiculous posts; if you had an ounce of reason, you would see through what I was writing to ascertain the point of transcendental idealism but you are too arrogant and in your agitation and aggression say harsh and nasty things to people who are simply having a discussion. — TimeLine

What are the harsh and nasty things I've said to you?

I am talking to someone else, not you, and I am trying to talk as simple as I can. — TimeLine

First off, in a thread, especially one where I have been an active participant, I can address whatever post I want, and so can you. So yeah, your post may not have been addressed to me, but if it bullshit it is my right to call it so.

your viciousness is uncalled for. — TimeLine

Look stop trying to play the victim. How was I vicious? You consider it vicious if someone tells you that your writing makes no sense? You don't know what vicious is then.

you stalk my every post and say the same thing over and over and over — TimeLine

No that's another fantasy of yours maybe, but I most certainly don't. I've seen you post in a couple of other threads today, and I don't even know what you've posted there, as I don't follow those threads. But yes, when you do cross my path, then if I think you're saying nonsense, I am entitled to call it out. That's what a forum and free discussion is about. So far you haven't addressed my challenges, and instead prefer to play the victim as if I did I don't know what to you. Pff. Grow up.

And yes, I may have repeatedly complained about you using BS words which mean nothing like "rationally autonomous agents", "authenticity", etc. because you keep repeating them in literarily almost all posts of yours that I come across, and that's a problem. Do you really have no other ideas apart from these? :s So of course you get repeat responses if you say the same thing.

Sorry buddy, done with your rubbish.

Well, what exactly are we talking about here? A metaphor or a category error? If it's just a metaphor, and is acknowledged to be nothing more than a metaphor, then I have no issue with it. Although I think that one should make that clear from the start. I don't want to be drawn into an absurd position like arguing that the world is not a stage because it isn't a raised platform in a theater. I'm not here for poetry. — Sapientia

You called it a category error, not me. As for "nothing more than a metaphor," all human ideas about the world are metaphors. As for personification, it seems to me it is both an idea and an automatic, unconscious projection of internal experiences onto the world. I saw a fascinating story on 60 minutes. It showed psychologists interacting with babies as young as 2 or 3 months. The babies already showed an understanding of agency and responsibility in others, even non-human others, i.e. stuffed animals.

I'm not a psychologist or cognitive scientist, so I don't want to overstep my expertise.

Freedom and empathy enables one to transcend the illusions of subjective self-interest that we project to the external world. We decide reality as it subjectively appears to us so the actual activity of this experience is merely the cognition between the relationship of objects.
Space and time are its pure forms, sensation in general, its matter
— Kant, A43/B60
There is no substance to this experience because the uniformity of space and time is not merely the materially causal relationships between things; it involves an understanding of the metaphysical expressions dependent on intuitions because consciousness and by extension people are not mere things and therefore can transcend the material. So two people who have gone beyond this propensity attain the necessary cognitive conditions to form a dialectic that expose these illusions; they can 'see' the phenomenon of one another.

That condition itself, the ability to be free from the illusions caused by this subjective self-interest, is only possible through love (conscience/empathy/moral consciousness). Love is intuitive rather than logical, it involves a 'leap of faith' so to speak just as one has faith in God. God is perfection, the perfect Good, the representation of grace and love that as we seek God through this faith or intuition, we seek this perfection that we of course will never reach, but the process of reaching out to God - to love God - enables the clarity that subjective self-interest blinds us from, thus God is love. — TimeLine

These are some of the most cogent and beautiful words I have ever read. Thank you for your clarity and the depth of your thoughts. I would add some of my thoughts here as well - I hope they resonate:

Love is an act of giving.
We give to whom we cherish and cherish to whom we give.
Love is both a leap of faith because it wants to exist and a knowing that it does exist.
Love wants to persist because it is its own reward.
Love is bound by sacred honor.
Love is held at the apex of consciousness and permeates the entire being.
Love yearns for expression and strives for contact and continuation.
Love is holy.
Love is a secret dwelling on public display.
Love is a contract between two souls; extremely fragile and infinitely powerful.
Love is a bridge between the heart and desire.
Love is helpless to defend itself and at the same time indestructible.
Love lives beyond life’s boundaries.
Love is the elixir of eternal life.
Love is infinite and lives in the smallest places.
Love is a lamp in the depths of the darkest night.
Love is a guide and messenger.
Love is a dwelling in the heart of consciousness.
Love is gentle and kind.
Love is quiet and screaming for expression.
Love lives for itself and a companion.
The gift of love is beyond measure.
The measure of love is the gift of a companion.
Love has power beyond imagination.
Love can only be given, never taken.
Love hears the rhythm of the universe.
Love is a creative force.
Love is its own reward.
Love is learned from a mother.
A father, sister or friend can be a mother figure and teach love.
Love is held in consciousness.
Love is the most valuable and powerful thing in consciousness.
The amount of love one has is directly proportional to our ability to give it.
Love transcends time.
Love is accepting.
Love is patient.
Love is a sweet power.
Love is a song that the heart hears.
Love is a yearning that wants to connect.
To find love, look inside, and see outside.
Love and imagination walk hand in hand.
Love sees great distances and small places.
Love craves itself.
Love feels the others pain and delight.
Love is fragile.
Love is a force only limited by imagination.
Love is the most powerful force in the universe.
Love is held in the mind’s eye and so is the universe.
Love is what binds us to the universe.
Love is a force of nature.
Nature manifests love.
Love will give its life for the other.
Love is a gift and our quest.
Love is insecure.
Love is a yearning that may atrophy or grow.
Love is a choice.

For the longest time in my life, I struggled between religion and the world's view of "science". I am a pretty religious person, but I'm also a lover of science- primarily the unknown, or not-yet-discovered sciences. I have a great interest in space, the human mind, and other things that can be considered "mystery subjects." One of the big issues, for example, is the Big Bang Theory. All my life, the religious community that I am a part of had the attitude of "Absolutely no questioning God or religion, no thoughts of anything else other than pure devotion." I was starting to come close to breaking off from religion as science and reason started to set into my mind. Then one day came when I just thought about the possibility of religion AND science, intermixed. I started to think about my Bible and it's contents, not all literally, but as lessons and teachings. I thought that maybe in the Bible, when it says "He created (whichever part) on (whichever of the seven days)," that it might not literally mean days, as in 24 hours time, but rather it might mean simply, "The first 'time that He worked'..." It might not make much sense, and it's hard to explain. To sum it up, in not so hard to understand wording, I basically started to take all of the exact measurements/times/weights, and think of them as more of a "big picture" kind of thing. Instead of literally getting swallowed by a whale, maybe Jonah was simply caught up in sins that has the magnitude of that of a whale. Maybe instead of literally splitting the Red Sea in half, the Israelites simply made a legendary and epic escape from Egypt. This helped immensely, for those who I didn't lose while trying to explain it all. It helped immensely, to be able to combine science and religion, two things that for thousands of years, have had to be two separate topics.

You called it a category error, not me. — T Clark

Yes, based on my original understanding, which was based on what you said. But now you're talking about metaphors, which has made me doubt my original understanding, which I haven't yet abandoned. It's on hold, pending clarification.

As for "nothing more than a metaphor," all human ideas about the world are metaphors. — T Clark

What? Maybe in some sense other than what I'm getting at. I'm contrasting metaphorical with literal, and making it clear that I'm only interested in the latter. I want to understand the world as it really is. I do not want to hear people wax poetic about it. I want to get to the truth of the matter. I do not want to lose sight of it as it is clouded with anthropomorphic projections.

As for personification, it seems to me it is both an idea and an automatic, unconscious projection of internal experiences onto the world. I saw a fascinating story on 60 minutes. It showed psychologists interacting with babies as young as 2 or 3 months. The babies already showed an understanding of agency and responsibility in others, even non-human others, i.e. stuffed animals.

I'm not a psychologist or cognitive scientist, so I don't want to overstep my expertise. — T Clark

That's making it more about the subject than the subject matter. My main focus is on whether what has been said about the world is true or false, not on why people think in this way about the world.

What? Maybe in some sense other than what I'm getting at. I'm contrasting metaphorical with literal, and making it clear that I'm only interested in the latter. I want to understand the world as it really is. I do not want to hear people wax poetic about it. I want to get to the truth of the matter. I do not want to lose sight of it as it is clouded with anthropomorphic projections. — Sapientia

Even realists or literalists, or whatever you want to call yourself, should recognize there is no direct experience of "the world as it really is," that can be put into words. There never has been, never will be, and can never be direct apprehension of so-called objective reality. We are left to run it through the sieve of human perception, explanation, interpretation, definition, and comprehension.

When you say "I'm contrasting metaphorical with literal, and making it clear that I'm only interested in the latter," is it your position that personification as it relates to people is somehow a literal expression of what is in the world? Personification is a human act. It is not inherent in the universe. Given that, humans are likely to use it in ways you don't find acceptable. Again - that's not a reflection of how things are, it is a reflection of how you see things.

That's making it more about the subject than the subject matter. My main focus is on whether what has been said about the world is true or false, not on why people think in this way about the world. — Sapientia

The subject you and I have been discussing is whether or not it is defensible to personify the world. As I've tried to say above, it is no more or less defensible than personifying my brother or my aunt. The question is, is it useful. I say yes.

Even realists or literalists, or whatever you want to call yourself, should recognize there is no direct experience of "the world as it really is," that can be put into words. There never has been, never will be, and can never be direct apprehension of so-called objective reality. We are left to run it through the sieve of human perception, explanation, interpretation, definition, and comprehension. — T Clark

That's debatable, but even if so, there's no need to go overboard. It isn't anything goes.

When you say "I'm contrasting metaphorical with literal, and making it clear that I'm only interested in the latter," is it your position that personification as it relates to people is somehow a literal expression of what is in the world? — T Clark

I find it hard to make sense of that question, so I'm not going to attempt to answer it. My point was simply that when it comes to the question of whether or not the world is a person, I'm only interested in the literal truth.

Personification is a human act. It is not inherent in the universe. — T Clark

Of course.

Given that, humans are likely to use it in ways you don't find acceptable. — T Clark

Yes, that's virtually inevitable.

Again - that's not a reflection of how things are, it is a reflection of how you see things. — T Clark

For those who personify that which is obviously not a person, then yes, clearly: it's not a reflection of how things are, but of how they see things.

The subject you and I have been discussing is whether or not it is defensible to personify the world. As I've tried to say above, it is no more or less defensible than personifying my brother or my aunt. — T Clark

That's absurd, as anyone can see. Merely saying so won't do. What's your argument? Unless you're talking in terms of artistic expression or what makes you feel good or something like that, which is something that I'm not at all interested in in this discussion, as I've tried to make clear, then you don't have a leg to stand on.

The question is, is it useful. I say yes. — T Clark

No, that's not the question at all. It's irrelevant. If that's the question for you, then I think we're at great risk of talking past each other, as we've probably already been doing to some extent.

That's debatable, but even if so, there's no need to go overboard. It isn't anything goes. — Sapientia

Of course it's debatable. I don't know what the rest of that statement means.

I find it hard to make sense of that question, so I'm not going to attempt to answer it. My point was simply that when it comes to the question of whether or not the world is a person, I'm only interested in the literal truth. — Sapientia

Human beings are animals. Mammals. Homo Sapiens. Physical objects. Their personhood is not inherent in them, it is projected onto them by someone. As I've said, that projection is something humans do before they are old enough to conceptualize what a person really is. Before they have any words. In that sense, a person is not "literally" a person.

That's absurd, as anyone can see. Merely saying so won't do. What's your argument? Unless you're talking in terms of artistic expression or what makes you feel good or something like that, which is something that I'm not at all interested in in this discussion, as I've tried to make clear, then you don't have a leg to stand on. — Sapientia

Well, not everyone can see that it's absurd. I haven't merely said so, I've made an argument, which you haven't bought. It is my position that someone's personhood is a projection of someone else's internal experience of their own selfhood onto another. Whereas you seem to believe that someone's personhood is a much a part of them as their fingernails, capillaries, and skin cells. That it has some sort of independent reality. That sounds like Platonic idealism to me.

There could still be a question of whether that projection is reasonable, we could develop standards, etc.

(Phil Dick once said that true paranoia is not when you think your boss is out to get you-- he probably is-- but when you think your boss's phone is out to get you.)

What you describe sounds like it could be compatible with the way that Aristotle thought about God. Or the Stoics, for that matter.

Of course it's debatable. I don't know what the rest of that statement means. — T Clark

It means that there's a standard for such explanations to either meet or fail to meet. My standard rules out category errors, for example.

Human beings are animals. Mammals. Homo Sapiens. Physical objects. Their personhood is not inherent in them, it is projected onto them by someone. As I've said, that projection is something humans do before they are old enough to conceptualize what a person really is. Before they have any words. In that sense, a person is not "literally" a person. — T Clark

Human beings are all of that, and persons too, given their qualities. These qualities are inherent, and in light of them, they fit the definition of "person". This is not true of other cases, such as rocks, space or the world. In those cases, it would be appropriate to call that "projection".

Well, not everyone can see that it's absurd. — T Clark

That's their problem.

I haven't merely said so, I've made an argument, which you haven't bought. — T Clark

I don't recall seeing what I'd call an argument. Maybe it was implicit in what you said, and I missed it.

It is my position that someone's personhood is a projection of someone else's internal experience of their own selfhood onto another. — T Clark

The world isn't a someone or a self.

Whereas you seem to believe that someone's personhood is a much a part of them as their fingernails, capillaries, and skin cells. That it has some sort of independent reality. That sounds like Platonic idealism to me. — T Clark

My position is common sense realism. Whether or not someone is a person is a question of whether someone has the qualities of personhood. We could argue over the finer details of what that consists in, but if you allow for ants, rocks, space, planets, the world, etc., then you've abandoned common sense and drifted off into a fantasy of your own making.

It means that there's a standard for such explanations to either meet or fail to meet. My standard rules out category errors, for example. — Sapientia

You say "it's a category error."
I say "no it's not, and here's why not."
You say "I reject your explanation because you've made a category error."

There's a name for that.

That's their problem. — Sapientia

You say "That's absurd, as anyone can see."
I say "Well, not everyone can see that it's absurd." I wrote that because I don't think that it's absurd and I am a member of the class "anyone."

Your statement is clearly wrong. Why is that my problem?

I don't recall seeing what I'd call an argument. Maybe it was implicit in what you said, and I missed it. — Sapientia

Is it your position that the following is not an argument?

Human beings are animals. Mammals. Homo Sapiens. Physical objects. Their personhood is not inherent in them, it is projected onto them by someone. As I've said, that projection is something humans do before they are old enough to conceptualize what a person really is. Before they have any words. In that sense, a person is not "literally" a person. — T Clark

I understand that you don't accept my argument, but it takes chutzpah for you to claim you get to say what is and what isn't an argument. Here is a definition of "argument" from the web - "A reason or set of reasons given with the aim of persuading others that an action or idea is right or wrong."

My view is common sense realism. Whether or not someone is a person is a question of whether someone has the qualities of personhood. We could argue over the finer details of what that consists in, but if you allow for ants, rocks, space, planets, the world, etc., then you've abandoned common sense and drifted of into fantasy. — Sapientia

By the definition above, calling your position "common sense" is not an argument and doesn't really mean anything. Pretty much all of Western philosophy is an examination of common sense and whether or not it should be taken seriously.

This has been a good conversation, but I don't think we're likely to get any closer to a resolution.

You say "it's a category error."
I say "no it's not, and here's why not." — T Clark

No, you bring up metaphors and stuff, but do not, as far as I'm aware, explicitly, plainly or directly answer that question. I'm still waiting for clarification.

You say "That's absurd, as anyone can see."
I say "Well, not everyone can see that it's absurd." I wrote that because I don't think that it's absurd and I am a member of the class "anyone." — T Clark

Now it is you who is the one taking things too literally. (It was an exaggeration, obviously). Although I'm still waiting on confirmation of whether I was indeed doing that (I.e. taking things too literally with regards to your original claim). Your "all ideas are metaphors" wasn't helpful in that regard.

Your statement is clearly wrong. Why is that my problem? — T Clark

Okay, how about the lesser claim that it is absurd at face value, and beside the point if turns out to be just a metaphor?

Is it your position that the following is not an argument? — T Clark

No, but we were talking about your previous posts, so quoting an argument in a subsequent post is inconsequential. And the question is, what's it an argument for?

By the definition above, calling your position "common sense" is not an argument and doesn't really mean anything. — T Clark

I never claimed or implied that calling it that is an argument, and it certainly does mean something. You could look up what it means, although that in itself would say something about you and about common sense.

You could look up what it means, although that in itself would say something about you and about common sense. — Sapientia

Kind of snotty. Snottiness can feel good, but it doesn't support your position.

This is what I had mentioned previously, where I said these 'dimensions' can collide - that is an awareness - but the conditions are very unique, almost as difficult as the conditions required for a star to be born because cognitively one required an awareness or consciousness of reality as it is, not as we imagine it to be, only possible when one freely chooses to transcend the collective consciousness (socially speaking). They thus become conscious of the collective to become a part of it and when they meet another of the same frame of mind, the dimensions can 'collide'. But the right conditions, so you need to be careful whether you are merely projecting the idea that you have emotionally connected or whether you actually have because empathy kindles our conscience and is the source our ability to sense-experience the external world authentically rather than imaginatively. This is the same for when you say God is the centre of your psyche, because then you become God and that is yet another ego-projection. Rather, it is through God that you can understand reality and God is love.

I like the way you think, by the way. It is very similar to me, albeit mine is a bit more rationally applied. Perhaps because I am drug and alcohol free... :-O

I believe I'm understanding what you're saying about ego projecting. Is it really me connecting to a dimension of reality or is my ego masking a reality that unconsciously fulfills its needs (relationships, empathy, etc..)? I feel like the two can be distinguished through having a solid understanding of the self - or, contrarily and more commonly, inappropriately confused in those that don't. Considering so many gain their sense of "spirituality" through organized religion, which conveniently seems to include many desirable wishes, it seems like most often times a sense of god comes from exactly that: unconscious projections of the self. If it seems so natural for that to emerge in other people then it's bold to say that hasn't, even in the slightest, effected me, so I'm not necessarily saying it hasn't.

It could be our subjective state of existence, the way in which we interpret reality, consists entirely of unconscious projections of the self. However, there are many people with spiritual beliefs. I think one thing that separates a lot of them from me is that I'm willing to take it one step further to see if my..."spiritual experiences" are projections of the self or tangible experiences of something, be it a god or something different, that transcends reality. Maybe one thing can be said, either I'm experiencing a higher form of consciousness that transcends my "self" - or maybe less ego-driven stated as - a supernatural force allowing me to experience it - or, I'm unconsciously projecting an image of my "self" on to a worldview to fulfill its needs. Either way you look at it, I believe that leads one into a supernatural state of existence that is outside the limitations of science, which, if true, perhaps makes either claim no more less mystical than the other.

The question is really as to whether nature is merely a brute existence or if intentionality (telos) is behind its workings. Empirically speaking we simply don't know, and I don't believe we ever can know by means of purely rational or empirical enquiry. There doesn't seem to be any imaginable way we could know by those means.
— John

On the other hand the subjective evidence for intentionality, human and otherwise, and causality, is individual experience; we may be utterly convinced by the evidence of our own experience. But our experience can never qualify as overwhelmingly convincing evidence for another person.

Mysticism can overcome both of these barriers through the study of orientation.

By example, imagine looking through a kaleidoscope, all the philosophical and mystical ideas are the, or cause the, symmetrical patterns observed. However through turning the lens part of the kaleidoscope, the philosophical and mystical ideas are re-aligned, the symmetry is altered. Resulting in the experience, understanding and development of the reorientation of the self.

In the first case, by a reorientation of the thinking, personal self with the hosting, or higher self.

In the second, a realisation by orientation of concepts that there are no two or more persons(in respect of humanity). In a real way, we are the same person/s.

So you've chosen to make a remark like that yet again, rather than give me the straight answer that I've been seeking. You're more interested in the perceived tone of one little comment than staying on point. Okay.

I believe I'm understanding what you're saying about ego projecting. Is it really me connecting to a dimension of reality or is my ego masking a reality that unconsciously fulfills its needs (relationships, empathy, etc..)? I feel like the two can be distinguished through having a solid understanding of the self - or, contrarily and more commonly, inappropriately confused in those that don't. — stonedthoughtsofnature

Well, it is clear through the anthropomorphic projections we place on God that perhaps proves the limitations of how far consciousness itself can go and this very ego-projection; it is ultimately a language of archetypes where epistemologically we require these symbols and characteristics that enable us to make sense of the external world. If there is no escape from this, if we require such 'potentials' that embody fundamental characteristics we model our identity with and pretend it to be an interaction with something outside of us, how can we tell if the experience of others is an illusion or if it is real? One quite easily becomes skeptical that an external world even exists but we need to draw a line somewhere and that would be to find the route enabling us to distinguish between appearance and reality, of seeing past the mere constructs of mental states. As you said, this solid understanding of the self. But, what is that? How can you tell me whether you have a solid understanding of yourself or whether you falsely think you have a solid understanding of yourself? Think about those people who all look and behave the same and yet materially think they are 'individuals'.

However, there are many people with spiritual beliefs. I think one thing that separates a lot of them from me is that I'm willing to take it one step further to see if my..."spiritual experiences" are projections of the self or tangible experiences of something, be it a god or something different, that transcends reality. — stonedthoughtsofnature

It is reasoning with yourself, a lens to our motivations, of why we feel a certain way at a given time, of the meaning to an experience and with time being linear (memory) to reflect and compare. Such introspection requires clarity, an honesty, it needs to step away from others so that it can learn to think autonomously and this requires a decision (free-will). Much of what we are is determined, as in we are epistemologically trapped by these projections so to speak, but consciousness is accessible and existentially this is perhaps the most frightening experience for people because it makes them aware that they are alone and separate from the external world, from all that they believed was real, family, friends etc, and the courage it takes to get through that is incredibly empowering. Sometimes, even the strongest of men can barely get through accepting this separateness.

I don't think it is a supernatural state as you say, rather it is just a process of mind, of training and practicing this consciousness of the 'self' by learning to be honest and it is not easy considering our identity is manufactured epistemically by these external symbols and characteristics. Platos' theory of forms shows that form of good is the most accurate representation of reality and if God is this representation of ultimate reality, of the source of self-completion that we ourselves seek, then seeking God is seeking this self-completion because striving toward 'good' or moral/virtuous enables us to abandon the ego. That process is the love of God, because in love or morality or conscience or empathy, we experience something outside of our ego. Some are driven by desires and deceive themselves by pretending it is 'love' (for instance, some may give to charity only so they can be applauded and praised, not because they actually want to give). Honesty is the key to genuine experiences.

She's right. Her point is the finite expresses infinite significance (i.e. "...people are not mere things and therefore can transcend the material." ), which we may choose to recognise or not. In recognising our own freedom, but more importantly, the freedom of others, we move beyond the hedonic/status treadmill, on which we view others (and ourselves) as means to obtain status.

Setting aside this self-interests we may finally empathise, to recognise others as significance of themselves, to recognise authentic love driven by significance of the other, rather than the ego stroking "love" which is really about one's own status or possession.

It's the opposite of the the religious persuasion. For the religious, the infinite significance expressed by the finite world is rejected, in favour of a force which can turn the insignificant finite (e.g. ourselves) into the infinite (e.g. an afterlife, worthwhile action done through God), as if people were nothing more than meaningless specks of matter. With respect to metaphysics, the religious are too busy loving God to love people.

"it does ignore the existence of something I feel connected with"

starting to that, everything you did was to create your own little bible and write it here, glad you found god in your heart, but he then exist in this sole place.

If it's true that our subjective interpretations of reality, or the conscious experiences of "ourselves", consist entirely of unconscious projections of our "higher and/or deeper" self, then maybe the deeper dimension of reality is in fact just that: a deeper form of consciousness - a more comprehensive understanding of what we really are - or a "broader projection of the self". Because marijuana acts as a dissociative, it changes the experience of conscious awareness by allowing you to more freely navigate the dimensions of reality you project that normally make up awareness, which gives the impression different dimensions of reality are colliding when the ego is in the process of dissociating from it . This is the same way hypnosis works, it "splits" the psyche, or brings "awareness" into a clearer form, the deeper the hypnosis goes.

You are using marijuana to protect yourself from yourself. You believe that marijuana is enabling this experience when it is actually you, but you are somehow excusing yourself from this experience by pretending the source of it is external to you. Marijuana merely absorbs the fear you may have to consciously undertake this cognitive project yourself, just as some people drink alcohol to provide them with the confidence to speak to another person they may desire and if they do something immoral, simply blame the alcohol. The problem with this is that when things become difficult, you could quite simply blame the marijuana and abandon the undertaking, because the awareness of your separateness to the external world is not without its profound difficulties. It is your capacity alone, your choice that is enabling the process. That is why I said that without marijuana, the experience would be more strengthening or empowering because you would become aware that it is you and whilst upright face the devil.

Consciousness is not something 'deeper' but just is, a reflective practice that enables you to experience who you actually, genuinely are. If you are separating yourself from the false representations of the external world caused by the illusions of your ego, this splitting away is entirely your own doing.

Interesting conversation...

I would think that one's idea of who they are is built entirely upon how they've learned to talk about themselves and others. One's initial worldview is entirely adopted. That is to say that it consists of thought/belief that belonged to others. If there is such a thing as one's genuine self, and such a thing is to be sought after and found, then the only way to do such a thing is to understand which parts of one's own self-identity are mistaken, and how they are.

I've mentioned this elsewhere:

I don't usually get into this issue, because it isn't a matter of argument, provability, or convincing anyone. I've argued for a metaphysics, but I don't argue about religion.

But I'll reply (maybe indirectly) to the initial-post's comments:

Metaphysics is the topic of what is. I know, that's called Ontology too, and hopefully we needn't get into an issue about the definitions and difference.

It has been pointed out that what is, is very good. Some say indescribably good. No, we needn't argue that. It's their impression, and maybe it isn't yours, and you have a right to your opinion.

Those people are expressing an impression. It isn't a metaphysical matter. You could say it's a supra-metaphycical impression.

Because it isn't metaphysical, it isn't about what exists ("exist" is a word that I avoid in definite statements anyway).

People have expressed gratitude for how good what is, is.

Some people, including some philosophers, have spoken of an impression of a Principle of Good.

An impression, remember,. not an assertion, or a claim about what you should believe.

As an example, the Byrds sang:

"I opened my heart to the whole universe, and found it was loving."

(No doubt they weren't referring to this physical universe, but rather to what is, in general.)

Anyway, I just wanted to add these comments, in indirect reply to the initial-post's commenst.

Michael Ossipoff