Let's use this diagram as a model to work from.

- The object is actual reality.
- The virtual image is the self's perception of reality.
- The lens is rationality.
- The eye is the self.

Now, some implications:

1. The eye only experiences. It can provide input to the lens, but it doesn't control the lens. It actually doesn't control anything. The self is pure experience.
2. Experience is not objective reality.
3. Objective reality is never viewed directly, but it exists.

There is no escape from this cave. The people who tell you that you can "walk out" are using immaterialist metaphysics. Plato himself was teaching immaterialist metaphysics, but I will give him a break because he was cheeky about it. New Agers believe this shit literally with no depth of insight.

The immaterialism of Plato, Masons, Luciferians, and pretty much anyone who believes in Christianity, Islam, or Judaism is as follows:

1. When you are born, a light from a star shoots down and enters your body. When you die, this light goes back up somewhere into the sky, like the milky way or something. They used to call this the "Path of Souls".
2. When you look at things (or some say, even just when you THINK about things), this light can shoot out of your eyes and travel through space and experience that space as though it were you and then return to your body with memory of this.
3. Consequently, they do not believe that the "virtual image" exists. They think that the lens isn't rationality -- it's the distortion of rationality. Consequently, they believe in DESTROYING rationality and trusting 100% whatever appears in the virtual image with no consideration for whether it actually represents the objective reality which cannot be truly reached (as I showed in the original model).

>>40534629 (OP)
>Doesn't know consciousness creates reality.
You're ngmi.

>>40534629 (OP)
(Still OP)

The funny thing is, they're actually right half of the time when they assert that the lens is more irrational than rational. This is bias creeping into the system. There are two solutions to bias: lean harder into rationality until you resolve it, or destroy it all and wipe it clean. Immaterialism is the latter path.

I want to now clarify something: these are THERAPIES. The problem with religion is that it takes a therapy as a final state, which not only excludes the other type of therapy that might be more relevant to a given person, but it prevents you from even completing the therapy because it gatekeeps the conclusion by focusing on the process of the therapy as the ideal.

This is the schizophrenia at the root of our civilization.

>>40534642
>Can't into abstract thinking
>Accidentally developed an abstract thought once, thought it was literal

Everyone likes to bring up Plato's Cave. No one wants to talk about his light emission theory. Wonder why? Maybe because it shows what a crackpot you have to be to take the cave theory literally, as though you can "walk out".

Again, it is useful for therapeutic purposes (pretend x is true, then use that pretense to do something beneficial which you've hopefully checked with your logical brain to make sure it isn't stupid and insane.

It's also cool as a metaphor, because on some level, obviously you can influence your surroundings and make the world your oasis. It's just a matter of recognizing that this is a result of your actions, not your imaginative light being flowing from your mind.

Your diagram is also a representation of what truly happens in cosmology & astronomy. They claim there is a "vacuum" which is an impossible idealism, claim that the universe is 13.8blyr in length. But rather than is the radius of the spherical lens between us & the edge of the universe. It is not the "beginning of time" as they like to think. Again this is because "time" is also not a physical thing, it is an arbitrary human defined idealism.

At ~13.8blyrs any electromagnetic radiation is likely to have become red shifted into decoherence. It also explains why "expansion" isn't real. Spherical lens will have a focal point in the middle, after which the light inverts & flips upside down. Then the second half of the spherical lens begins magnifying the image & any galaxies will begin appear larger & larger the further out we go. This is what is physically observed but they equate it to "expansion". They take the apparent optic effects of relativity, to be a real physical manifestion rather than just an apparition.

Adherence to Idealism & immaterialism is actually one of the true biggest problems with our world. Even the scientists that most here claim are "materialist". No actually they talk about some of the most non-physical bullshit I have heard utter by a human.

.>>40534646
So, like we are doing group therapy at global level? And we just than can live a peaceful life and accept who we truly are? Want?

>>40534629 (OP)
>There is no escape from this cave.
lol

>>40534756
Very well said. I had not made that connection, but this was already my understanding of the big bang since I was like 12 or 15 years old. I can't fathom being stupid enough to believe the alternative. I guess some people never just lay on their back and think about the stars.

>>40534764
Glad you asked. Let me expand on that point.

There are two therapies:
1. Develop your rationality (improve the effectiveness of the lens).
2. Develop your creativity (increase the strength of the virtual image).

Technically, I'll add a third therapy, but it seems like most people are incapable of even understanding the entry level documents:
3. Develop an awareness of the fact that you are PURE awareness as the "self", and your awareness is capable of focusing or not focusing on whatever it chooses. In other words, as the "eye" (which just implies focus, as you would have an inner eye too, which is the pineal gland that is used to focus on various parts of your mind, possibly through some generation of crystals (through a piezo-electric effect, maybe).

This third teaching is really what Buddhism is, but Buddhism became perverted with Hinduism. This is the long descent into Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Islam, and Christianity. And I know that some of these mixes had the best of intentions, but like a virus, this combination seems to have ruled these peoples like a hive mind.

The belief that leads to that whole "soul of light" metaphysics is a weakness in the soul (perhaps an unhealthy pineal gland, whatever that is — I personally believe the crystals could be good, since we're talking about an antennae and transponder to the brain), which results in the understanding that the creative brain and the pure awareness self are the same thing. This would be a symptom of a weak rational mind, which could simply be due to a weak aforementioned "soul eye" (pineal gland, or something).

In other words, Buddhism is dangerous knowledge in the hands of someone too stupid to use it responsibly.

>>40534654
>Confuses abstract thinking with reality.

>>40534907
>There are two therapies:
Returning to these.

>1. Develop your rationality (improve the effectiveness of the lens).
This is the ancient school that led to craftsmanship, law, and other matters of dominance and control. This school traditionally involves asceticism and other methods of training discipline.

>2. Develop your creativity (increase the strength of the virtual image).
This is the ancient school that led to storytelling tradition, written tradition, linguistics, and at its liberal arts core, mathematics. This school traditionally involves psychedelics. The people generally lived in small groups because they had no ambition for more and did not like living around others who did.

This is all very high level but relates to the history of the mystery schools, ancient rituals, and shamanism.

>>40534629 (OP)
>The eye only experiences. It can provide input
Self contradictory.
And even before that
>The eye is the self.
No it isnt. The eye does not see. The eye is an information gathering device. It is simply a conduit. An electric cord.

>>40534944
We're talking about inner vision. The literal eye is probably your pineal gland looking at your brainwaves, so the truest source of your identity is the control of that pineal gland.

>>40534953
It could also be that I'm wrong, and the mind "focuses" by some other means. My point is ultimately that your identity is the object which receives information after a layer of filters and before a layer of communication leads to your movement or action of any kind. Thus, you are not your actions nor your rationality. You are the experience between them.

>>40534960
>your identity is the object which receives information after a layer of filters
Nah. Your identity is the first layer of filter.
>layer of communication leads to your movement or action of any kind
that first layer is lying to you, you do not ever act. As you understand in your next sentence, yet you dont understand it well enough to see you are not your identity.

But NONE of this leads to a conclusion that you can never understand truth.

>>40534907
Ok, thanks bro, but like, how do you answer to me so clearly. seems i almost feel so lonely, like in my present no body know this shit.

Like, come on local boring guy solved science in a month through addict with chat GPT, WTF?

>>40534629 (OP)
I just had another thought on this.

I'm wrong here:
>>40534907
Buddhism isn't a third teaching. It contains both teachings.

The correct teaching is that light/energy/whatever can move both ways in this cycle of discipline of rationality or enhancement of creativity. You need to open up both paths so that you can cycle through correctly and then perceive the self.

They correctly identified the self in the loop, and beyond that, it's not really all that important to identify one absolute direction for everything. Maybe it is more "true" for me to use rationality while doing work or learning, but it is more "true" for me to experience a story of a friend in my creative mindset. So I have scientific knowledge of how light actually works, but I can see how they could have accidentally developed a model going the opposite direction, or at least such a symbol could be perceived backwards at a later point in time. This would mean that we didn't necessarily lose our sense of reality. It's also possible that we never had it.

>>40535011
And I guess I mean that with all due respect. I don't believe ancient people were significantly stupider. They were probably more brilliant than us in many respects, if we're referring to the fittest among them who actually survived, but we have access to such a superior set of information that we would blow all of them away in any sort of quiz on that stuff. In any case, at some point humans must have "gained consciousness", once they realized that they were naturally living with the circuit in the opposite direction, which I will recap as "we are light beings who project from our eyes and go into the stars when we die", meaning "our rationality controls not just the virtual image but reality itself, because there is no reality distinct from our experienced reality, because there is no layer of separation between them".

The "direction" that this leads to is the virtual image influencing the rationality, meaning rationality was not in control of the experience cycle. Somehow in our ancient past, the rationality component flipped on, so we not only learned from pattern recognition (which modern academics posit is the supreme intelligence... funny, although it can be produced readily with an active imagination or some drugs, and it certainly has some benefit) but from memory and allocation. Through conscious memory, the rational mind can connect links between moments in time where you felt, saw, or heard something. Everything has some measure of subconscious memory, but the ability to make the memory conscious is how the rational mind acts, and this was the birth of cosnciousness.

>>40534982
I started going down rabbit holes about 4 years ago. History lead to mystery, and then eventually you have to "try it out" to know what others believe. This interests with your already existing deep interest and knowledge of mathematics, so you approach the whole thing from a modeling perspective. You model out every single idea, every major ideological in its period. You get everything wrong like 100 times in a row. You try simple models, complex models. Eventually, you realize the futility of these models on different levels, but you also appreciate the approximation. This then ferments in your brain a while, as you casually return to your interest in studying history and the root causes of issues in current society. New connections start being made, such as the whole pineal gland patent thing, the "astral travel" (bullshit) that the CIA was researching, the crystals they can supposedly get from fluoride in the water, your knowledge of antennae and electromagnetics. All came together when I realized exactly what my metaphor was in OP (inner vision, literally).

>>40534972
Ok, so you think the eye is rationality and the lens is the identity? In other words, the body is real, and "I" (the spoken I) am imagined. But I am also real, because I truly exist as a being with feelings.

>>40534972
>>40535050
Ultimately, I'm going to disagree with you because most pain is memory, and thus the thing which controls memory (or focus on the present input of data, if it chooses) is the closest thing to identity. This is true despite the fact that materialists believe they understand this. They only get half of it because materialists can't do abstract thought, which means they can't truly reverse their circuit to appreciate that their rationality is in control, not subservient to reality, because it is the true self. This is what the whole thing really means as I alluded to in my "third therapy" Buddhism, which would really just the third teaching.

>>40535031
>All came together when I realized exactly what my metaphor was in OP (inner vision, literally).
Ok thanks, Lmao

I guess I'll go back to tormenting those intelgence agency though, they feel like the only people I can communicate without pressure now (funny)

>>40535096
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8GTH4aK2fKo

>>40535031
It's not clear to me if this is simply DMT production or it is a piezoelectric crystal that tunes into brain waves (thus, the pineal gland "looks at the brain waves" and adjusts them), but the point is that the root eye controls memory and focus on the present. If the pineal is not directly part of this, then it's just the lens rather than the eye.

Great thread. Thought provoking stuff... I'm curious for someone to throw out their sources for these insights, as I would like to delve more into some of these concepts

>>40534629 (OP)
Space, time, matter, and "objects" are all creations of the Mind. There is no external reality outside Mind.

>>40535296
I am OP and probably half of the comments. My course is just myself, molded by things I've read and in criticism of some of it. I got into a big argument with someone who I consider pretty wise on the matters of spirituality, and I was shocked when I got him to spit out that he believed the "lens" (filtering process post-input, aka rationality) was just distortion, and the objective lies at the very beginning of this process. The problem is, you're trusting the stupidest part of yourself and taking all sovereignty away from the thing that can make any decisions. I guess you can define the self as any aspect of this system, but I think the true self is the thing that perceives a timeline of the self and the thing that can control where focus is directed, not the rawest inputs on my skin and close to my organs. Those seem more like things that I "have" rather than things that I am.

>>40536125
Um no.

>>40536079
>Great thread. Thought provoking stuff... I'm curious for someone to throw out their sources for these insights, as I would like to delve more into some of these concepts
Sorry, meant to quote you for this: >>40536429

>>40534825
This.

>>40534629 (OP)
Plato didn’t actually believe in the cave. It was just a thought experiment.

>>40534629 (OP)
I'm
getting
out of here
even if it makes me crazy
https://www.brighteon.com/d2d80db5-a9f0-4c87-a89a-af9ccd961e52

>>40539770
I'm not watching that psycho shit

>>40534629 (OP)
I don't even know what Plato's cave is. ok looked it up. it's just an ignorance is bliss spin off. please don't explain to me the time difference. I know. so there's a shit ton of analogies for lilplatybabys spit. you can say ignorance is bliss or people live in a bubble or flat earthers or just really any fringe hypothesis. which is cool

and op explain to me your shit because it doesn't make sense and I don't understand. I stopped after there is no escape because you didn't explain your first shit. I want to call you names as it's custom, but I'm giving you a chance and I'm being amicable.

>>40539943
adding it's mainly because you started saying stuff about what other people believe which is dumb. want to know why? because you are doing the same thing when you said people can't leave. just another hypothesis added to the big pile of humans are evil and retarded.

>>40534629 (OP)
wait how do you know objective reality exists if you never perceive it?

>>40539943
>it's just an ignorance is bliss spin off.
I have no idea what this means.

>I stopped after there is no escape because you didn't explain your first shit.
You cannot leave your body, and leaving your body is what Plato really meant by "leaving the cave". The cave is your head, and you are in your cave, only seeing shadows on the wall.

>>40539753
Maybe this anon is right. I don't have a deep enough grasp of Plato to say when he's being literal and when he's not.

>>40540079
You perceive shadows of an objective reality that consistently line up with the existence of it.

>>40534629 (OP)
Of course there is an escape, but I don't think you'll like the answer.

>>40540620
>death
Wow, so clever. I've been describing your kind this whole time. Your metaphysics is that little light or fire flows into you at birth from the sky and then flows back to the sky after you die. Seems like people who hold these beliefs are unaware of this literal translation of fact.

>>40540944
> death
Mostly you die and resurect, but then you are fucked with synchronicity that put your life in chaos if you try to go to your old self.

>>40541012
Synchronicity is a double edge sword:
> You stay in the flow of the stream and everything is ok,
> You try to swim upstream and you are damned.

>>40541012
I understand what you're saying. Your "lives" are the different brain configurations (default mode networks) that your memory remembers, and ego death is essentially the fresh recreation of these. Your point about discovering your old habits is a great point as well.

They were talking about their default mode network as their identity, whereas I'm saying that is merely a virtual image. It is being viewed by an inner eye, and it is created out of the mind.

>Mostly you die and resurect

Who is "you"? As I just said, the virtual image is NOT your identity. It's a created image that may or may not be equivalent to objective reality. Because identity is full of bias, it's difficult to remain objective of course.

>>40541041
>>40541012
My point is, your knowledge is therapeutically useful, but it is only one angle of the whole system, and it's wrong to believe that existence is fundamentally built this way. It's just how your current thought is built. Get outside of your thought. (A good koan.)

>>40541052
> Die and resurect a new
On a psyche perspective only, it means change the lens.
But on a spiritual or Quantic or metaphysical perspective not only the lens has been modified but somehow the object too.

>>40541300
I see. Where the liminal space is time itself — it cannot be transferred through, at least not perfectly.

>>40541300
I think maybe these are two concepts that are sometimes confused?
>On a psyche perspective only, it means change the lens.
Ego death: change the set of heuristics, habits, daemons.
>But on a spiritual or Quantic or metaphysical perspective not only the lens has been modified but somehow the object too.
Dharma: things react through time, always fairly but not always symmetrically or immediately

>>40540119
I was describing analogies pertaining to platos cave. Ignorance is bliss is one of them. And why are you putting words in platos mouth? You cant ask him is this what you meant? Or did he describe what he meant in text?