To realize our nature as god

[Isomorphic]

Existence is a necessity, what then does god constitute in opposition to what?

To realize that we are god, and that it could not be otherwise, is it not then to realize that existence must be and that there is nothing to create nor a creator?

That we realize ourself as god not because we created anything, but because of the opposite; that there is nothing to create.

[Joseph Maynor]

It's so weird to teach spiritual enlightenment because I can only teach my path.  So if I agree with someone when I don't feel that way, that doesn't feel right to me.  And then when I say something that pisses everybody off, that doesn't feel right to me either.  And when I say something that's so abstract that everyone agrees with, that doesn't feel right to me either.  This is why the only place that I truly teach spiritual enlightenment (from my pov) anymore is people who come to me and ask me.  That said, let me offer something that may help you because I've written this much I might as well address your question.  Nature in this context means essence.  Essence is a noun, a thought.  When we say the essence of a tree is treeness, that's kind of what we're doing when we're asking about the nature of me -- what is the me-ness?  But me is a pronoun, an abstract thought.  So when you start with words/abstraction you're going to end with that too.  Once you're on a railway you're confined to go in that direction.  Words and abstraction narrow your gaze, but see we're trained to find the one right conceptual answer that lies behind the scenes that's true now and forever, but that's a stance, a very intellectual stance that some people (not all) eventually see the limitations of/the pros and cons of.

[Isomorphic]

@Joseph Maynor Well spotted, and I agree with all you just stated. I also understand well your issues about teaching enlightenment, though I would not say that I am so myself.

Though there are such a thing as Kantian forms of a priori sensible intuitions, such things that are more than abstractions. That which abstractions pertains to and are made of. That which we are both limited and potentiated by, that which can be held in thought without being themselves merely an "abstraction".

We are imposed by these things as long as we live, and we would be so wherever we went. These are a predicate for consciousness, yet also impossible without consciousness. 

[Joseph Maynor]

5 hours ago, Isomorphic said:

@Joseph Maynor Well spotted, and I agree with all you just stated. I also understand well your issues about teaching enlightenment, though I would not say that I am so myself.

Though there are such a thing as Kantian forms of a priori sensible intuitions, such things that are more than abstractions. That which abstractions pertains to and are made of. That which we are both limited and potentiated by, that which can be held in thought without being themselves merely an "abstraction".

We are imposed by these things as long as we live, and we would be so wherever we went. These are a predicate for consciousness, yet also impossible without consciousness. 

That's a really good comment.  There are many ways to interpret what a thought is.  This gets into the problem of universals in philosophy and beyond that.  Frege would say that only sentences that refer to statements that can be true or false are candidates for complete thoughts.  Spinoza would say ideas are concepts/thoughts and can be complete thoughts if they correspond to reality (what he calls true ideas).  Images and emotions might be considered thoughts too.  Spinoza considered emotions to be bodily perturbations not thoughts.  But if what we're talking about is using language, which is what I was assuming, the four modern schools there world be conceptualism, nominalism, phenomenalism, and realism.  Conceptualism thinks of words (and statements) as concepts.  Nominalism thinks of words (and statements) as a concatenation of names or symbols.  So, let's look at a sentence: "I am God."  The conceptualist interprets this as a thing in the intellect/a conceptual thing.  The phenomenologist interprets this as pointing to experience within consciousness.  The nominalist interprets this as a use of language that points to or refers to the world in a naming kind of way.  The realist interprets this as pointing directly to reality.  What further complicates this is we tend to think of thoughts as including both concepts and statements.  And then there are these issues: Are memories thoughts?  What about daydreams?  What about night dreams?  Are feelings thoughts?  Is gut feel a thought?  Is vibe a thought?  Is awareness a thought?  Is consciousness a thought?  Is personal identity a thought?  Is The Other (as in other people maybe) a thought?   Are specific tastes, smells, sounds, touching thoughts?  If I dip my finger into a bowl of cold Jello and feel that distinct sensation, is that a thought? 
 

 

Edited March 21, 2022 by Joseph Maynor

[Isomorphic]

@Joseph Maynor Well, all of these things can only become an issue when we first pay attention to things as antithetical to other things such to calculate a synthesis of them. 

The thing is they are naturally synthesized to perfect cohesion in the unity from where they were first extracted.

This calculation will never keep up with the natural "synthesis", which is why philosophy must at last be considered a means to wisdom which can be applied in a world of possibilities. (edit: and not a rationalistic mathematical scheme)

 

There are better and worse ways of going about doing that, which is what most relates to your comment and  which my next response (perhaps I will write it later today) must contend with.

Edited March 21, 2022 by Isomorphic