/lit/ - Literature

frustrated?

>>11516178
Kierkegaard is leaping in his grave

>>11516178
>>11516205
>>11516235
try redpill

>>11516178
The fine tuning does all the necessary heavy lifting. If the cosmological constant changed by one part in 10^120, life wouldn't be possible. Almost like the universe was made with us in mind.

>>11516250
>dogmatic politics
>over personal philosophy and actual spirituality
um no sweaty

An important truth

i memed hegel so bad with google search quotes that cocksuckers still use hegel bait for a fix. proving hegel is right

>>11516178

Trying to rationalize God with our current level of analytical ability is a waste of time. If there's any valid form of understanding God it is probably via perception, not logic. So, knowledge through heightened perception. I guess that would entail yoga, meditation and all this mystical shit. But when it comes to perception people would just call you a schizophrenic or something, and again, if understanding a bit of God's nature is only possible through perception at this point in time, discussions about the nature of God are a total waste of time. I don't know, I'm just rambling.

>>11516178
not an argument

>God is real because I define God as the "first mover", as the "reason for existence"

>>11516652
>God is real because I define him as that which nothing greater can be thought

Ontology of literally anything is ungrounded.

>>11516641
This is a totally reasonable perspective.
The grounding for any ontological perspective is held in perception and therefore further arguments on the nature of God and/or the divine are necessarily based upon assumptions.

>empirical proof is valid

>>11516641
You're rambling in the right direction though. Somehow I can't shake the feeling that some of those who open themselves to mystical experience go on to have these experiences are indeed chosen. Circular logic, self-fulfilling prophecy, I don't think so. It's just that when skeptics ask for the proofs they are incapable of understanding.

>>11516725
The main problem with mystical experiences is that they're very personal. You can't really show someone your exact experience like you can show them an apple or a table. If we could get everyone on "mystical experience mode" and we found ourselves all inhabiting some sort of alternate reality we could all cross verify, we'd have a different story.

Never seen an internet atheist engage Gödel's attempt at a proof.

>>11516736
This is an interesting thought. Would a planet of mostly-coherent mystics be sharing a language of theological symbols and inhabiting a consensus reality? Is that us now, at this moment? The aboriginal people of Australian and their dreamtime come to mind for some reason.

If god isn't real then why do I have an idea of him?

>>11516719
>>11516725
>>11516736

Well yes, I'm sort of trying to wrap my mind around this as of late. To me what makes most sense from a spiritual perspective is as follows: To perceive a thing of a "mystical" nature, let's say for example, the soul. Then after you've "gathered" enough perceptions, to use reason to try to make sense of these perceptions and structure them within some system. I think this is basically what people have been doing for millenia, this is the essence of spirituality.

But then, knowing that. I feel like it's a waste of time to try to merely explain this structure to other people, in fact, it's like you're asking people to misinterpret what you're saying. They haven't had that direct experience dealing with perception, so the only choice they have if they are to accept the structure is blind faith, and that's how you get dogmatism.

So in my mind, we shouldn't be dealing with how to explain these structures to people, but find out how to reliably induce this heightened perception within people, and THEN present our structure to them, and if all goes well they should understand instead of simply know. And I have this gut feeling that that's essentially what yoga and medtation is about, that they're key to inducing these hightened states of perception within people.

So that's precisley what I aim to do, I view yoga and meditation as an experimental process, and therefore view spirituality as an experimental (rather than faith-based) process. I want to get into serious study of religious text and combine it with an serious practice of meditation and yoga. Yoga because we are a body, not a brain floating in a jar. If the spirit does indeed exist, it is channeled through the body so it can be expressed in the material realm (time and space). Sort of a hardware-software situation. So the body does matter, which means that genes must matter to some extent as well. Anyways, ramble over. You guys tell me if you've thought about similar things.

>>11516641
That is basically Christian Orthodox theology, you cannot know God's essence (ousia), only his activities (energeia). Not even mentioning the strong mystical tradition through hesychasm and such.

Mystical texts are instruction manuals, that's why they were kept away from the rabble.

>>11516251
>If the cosmological constant changed by one part in 10^120, life wouldn't be possible
If your parents hadn't fucked on in that motel you wouldn't have been conceived either. Somebody else would have been though, and some other life would have been if the constant was different. Or it wouldn't, who cares, maybe there exists every possible cosmological constant universe

>>11516670
oh yeah? What if I take God and add one

>>11516802
add one to what exactly

>>11516178
*blocks your path*

>>11516803
God + 1 > God

>>11516810
i mean i want you to explain what that operation you just described actually means. define God, then define what applying "+1" means and how it changes the original value

>>11516782
>muh metaverse and anthropic principle
Science just has all the answers huh

>>11516813
>define God

you define 1 first

>>11516802
>>11516810
Uh, but what if God is infinite?
infinity + 1 = infinity

>>11516765
You don't need the eastern crap, Christianity already incorporates that. In-Corpore; embodiment, the Word made flesh. Jewish categories of thought place great emphasis on the body. Westerners conceiving of eastern practices is embarrassing, you're too far disconnected to really gain something out of them, the empty spaces are filled by your own prejudice. It's also goofy.

>>11516205
The brainlet who wrote that doesn't understand that the entire Science of Logic is Hegel's ontological argument.

>>11516765
Good perspective. I too am trying to find spirituality in a world that assumes it does not exist or holds in only in dogmatic religion.
Experimentation will no doubt hold the key. I don't find much interest in Christianity, I am not a member of any abrahamic covenant and don't intend to start now, and for that matter the original traditions of my white ancestors were destroyed and oppressed by the very same faiths.
My only option is to start fresh and see what sticks.
Check out some occult stuff if you fancy a giggle at people who are clearly losing their sanity and also to see some other perspectives and practices. I would advise looking at them initially from a psychological viewpoint and with a healthy degree of scepticism whilst remaning open minded.

>>11516178
*scoops*

>>11516883
>doesn't give the premises

>>11516841
Infinity does not exist, it's not a real number. Checkmate theists.
If God were infinite, evil could not possibly exist. Just like an infinitely hot flame would consume everything else, an infinitely good God would extinguish all evil, all death, all misery, all pain.

>>11516841
Infinity is a lower concept. Not applicable to a perfect being like God

>>11516912
>>11516904
Based infinity posters.

Proclus said it best, the idea of infinity is not perfect because it implies a shutting down of the reasoning capabilities, a limitation in the understanding component of the soul, which is not performed by finiteness.

It’s why Aristotle did not like using infinity in his philosophical arguments

>>11516841
>inf + 1 = inf
>subtract inf from both sides
>1 = 0

this is theist logic (i.e. self contradictory)

The fact no one on this board knows the difference between validity and soundness in a deductive argument is deeply upsetting.

Sage

>>11516861

Well, as far as the eastern stuff is concerned, I am really not interested in their ideology, just the pragmatic stuff (the practical exercises). I don't think they have a monopoly on the concept of meditation. To me, meditation seems like a universal practice. And as far as Yoga is concerned. Yoga seems like a well developed system for mastering your body and keeping it in shape. So I view and appreciate it from that perspective, and I think it may have great utility for us as well. Learning to deal with your bodily impulses and mastering your breathing seems like a no-brainer to me.

>i think therefore i am

>>11516950
damn you sound so smart. but I guess not smart enough to realize only angsty teenagers post in "does god exist" threads, making you being upset just as laughable as the picture you attached

>an existential leap of faith is admirable

>>11516950
Filtered, thanks

>>11516976
>science isn't just the shortbus into the abyss

>>11516932
damn what a burn

>>11516904
True, but infinity is part of the extended reals.
Checkmate atheist.
Also, did you just assume God's ethics?

>>11516950
I...I know the difference.

>>11516932
>implying addition as you’ve defined it for transfinite quantities is a well-defined operation
t. English major with no knowledge of ordinal nor cardinal arithmetic

>>11516993
>True, but infinity is part of the extended reals.

+/- inf are not real numbers.

>Also, did you just assume God's ethics?
>Also, did you just assume God's logic?
ah yes, just throw everything out the window

>>11516993
>mathematical terminological word salad
You’re a retard

>>11516765
praying is as valid as meditation and yoga, its just our western equivalent. but you shouldnt "talk" to God, you need to listen to him, and that is done by emptying your mind and getting open for spiritual experience

>>11516932
>inf + 1 = inf
>divide inf from both sides
>1 + 0 = 1
huh wow maybe addition with infinite values isn't that easy

>>11517026
Meditation can bring about the realization that all sensory input is of the same nature. The human brain can receive a variety of inputs, even artificial ones, and it will be able to process it regardless, as proven by extrasensory prosthetics. Taking this reasoning further it is possible to postulate, and realize via meditation, that the perception of thoughts is also a form of an input, rather than coming from the self.

So no, prayer, meditation and yoga are three completely different things you spiritual mongrel.

>>11517019
>+/- inf are not real numbers
Ah, my bad. I forgot that the only mathematical objects that exist are real numbers.
>>11517020
Was the word "extended" too much to add for you?

what the fuck are you retards babbling about?
Cantor was devout,
it's Aleph for a reason.

>if there is a god in ur mind, then Obvs there is a god irl

>>11517091
>if your mind receives sensory input, then obs there is an irl

>>11517037
It’s not that it’s too much, it’s that the discussion didn’t warrant it. We were talking about infinity as a philosophical concept, not as a part of the extended reals. You are literally retarded

>>11517091
>the molecules inside you tricked you into believing nonsense

>>11517091
if that which nothing greater can be thought exists in your mind, then it must also exist out, for it would be greater for it to also exist externally. Also btw that which nothing greater can be thought is the definition of god, so god exists.*
ftfy

>>11516950
>sage
nice abuse of the reporting system faggot

>>11517117
>for it would be greater for it to also exist externally.

Also it would be greater if it could stop all the pain, disease, misery and sin. But no, we can't assume we know God's ethics, but we somehow can assume he would exist because that's somehow better than not existing.... epic simply epic

>>11516899
All hegelian premises are on the first pages of the Phenomenology of Spirit you fucktard

>>11517155
>still doesn't give the premises

>>11517163
>he hasn't read hegel
>he is entitled to be taken seriously when talking shit about hegel
Choose one

>>11517112
He brought up the math concept when he invoked the real numbers so I replied with math concepts. You sound like someone who brought up philosophical infinity elsewhere and is now projecting your intent on other's posts.

>>11517173
I notices your post is suspiciously lacking the premises.

>>11517163
Unironically all the two hegelian premises are that the world and the being are separated entities but can be analysed thorugh ontology, the whole concept of self-consciousness is the hegelian premisse, when the man can differentiate himself from the world he lives, he is self-counsciouss of his being and counscious of the nature that is another being, this is the critique of the I and not-I of Fitche's doctrine, Hegel sees the world as a being because it can be analysed ontologically through phenomenology.
Basically this difference between essence of being and nature of self is the only premise of the hegelian system, and it is possible to see where he is going, I still haven't read the Science of Logic, but it is totally believable to be a system to prove the ontological argument, because the whole hegelian system is ontologic biased

>>11517174
There is no difference between the philosophical and the mathematical infinity you retard, it’s the mode of discussion that was different.

Holy shit. When someone starts talking about Aristotleian archetypal numbers do you introduce the concept of a number line autistically into the discussion?

>>11517117
But that which nothing greater can be thought DOESNT exist in the mind because absolutely nothng exists in the mind. And even if it did, it doesnt mean it exists without.

>>11517117
>implying anything exists outside of our minds collectively

>>11517194
>There is no difference between the philosophical and the mathematical infinity you retard
Phew, good then. So both exist since infinity in math is a thing.
>Holy shit. When someone starts talking about Aristotleian archetypal numbers do you introduce the concept of a number line autistically into the discussion?
Is that not the intuitive thing to do?

>>11517218
I’m done here. You’ve outed yourself as a pseud.

I study both the philosophical and the technical side of mathematics. The technical side is more watery and prone to error than the philosophical side, especially when utilizing the concepts of infinity and zero, both lesser concepts.

You wouldn’t understand this side of mathematics though.

>>11517218
cringe
>>11517222
based trips

>>11516652
>God is real because I define him as any inspiration

>>11516178
proof of God

Theorem 1 : Existence of God is good-er than non-existence of God
Theorem 2 : God is good
Theorem 3 : Therefore God exists

checkmate atheists

>>11516954

>>11517123
Nice moderating, janny.

>>11516178
... I just cannot get away from this phenomenon. when one wants to prove a god, some motherfuckers "immediately" go to the Mathematics and tried some literal down-right fucked up shit like "my infinity is god" "god + 1 = god" "ma incompleteness is god".
... why

>>11517283
Thanks, filtered.

>Let us examine this point of view and declare: ‘Either God exists, or He does not.’ To which view shall we incline? Reason cannot decide for us one way or the other: we are separated by an infinite gulf. At the extremity of this infinite distance a game is in progress, where either heads or tails may turn up. What will you wager? According to reason you cannot bet either way; according to reason you can defend neither proposition.
>So do not attribute error to those who have made a choice; for you know nothing about it.
>‘No; I will not blame them for having made this choice, but for having made one at all; for since he who calls heads and he who calls tails are equally at fault, both are in the wrong. The right thing is not to wager at all.’ Yes; but a bet must be laid. There is no option: you have joined the game. Which will you choose, then? Since a choice has to be made, let us see which is of least moment to you. You have two things to lose, the true and the good; and two things to wager, your reason and your will, your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to shun, error and unhappiness. Your reason suffers no more violence in choosing one rather than another, since you must of necessity make a choice. That is one point cleared up. But what about your happiness? Let us weigh the gain and the loss involved in wagering that God exists. Let us estimate these two probabilities; it you win, you win all; if you lose, you lose nothing. Wager then, without hesitation, that He does exist...

Full passage: https://www.york.ac.uk/depts/maths/histstat/pascal_wager.pdf

All the logical proofs for God never fully prove God. They only offer us a way to see how it’s possible for God to exist. Ultimately, reason cannot be trusted that well. You must have faith in it to believe in God, or you must have faith in God, which is just as easy, or even easier, as having faith that God doesn’t exist. Ignorance is not an excuse.

>>11516802
the set retains its cardinality

>>11516904
God is maximally good because he creates, not because he caters to every single organism’s personal need. If he were not able to create subjective evil, he would not be God.

>>11517396
>unironically posting pascal's wager

>>11516904
infinity can be whatever, but we can measure infinities relative to each other
it is knowable

>>11517396

>>11516178

>>11517412
>he hasn’t actually read the book but relies on meme images made by atheists who also haven’t read Pascal and misinterpret his meaning by conflating the wager with believing in the Christian God, not knowing that Pascal has a section of the book devoted to explaining why Christianity is the superior religion and proofs for Jesus Christ

>>11517412
whats wrong with it

>God is a utilitarian, because I am. Therefore He can't be all powerful because life isn't constant bliss

>>11517416
>we can measure infinities
oh wow

>>11517431
>Christianity is the superior religion and proofs for Jesus Christ
Care to share?

Do you believe the idea of God is innate?

>>11517410
>God is maximally good because he creates
so this is not subjective
> If he were not able to create subjective evil
but somehow the evil that surrounds us is just subjective

Nice apologist logic

>>11517445
So you don’t actually want to read the book? With your soul on the line, and nothing to lose, you don’t wanna invest your time in considering God’s existence?

>>11517458
I don't have time to read an entire book right now, if Pascal's work is so great I'm sure you'd be delighted to relate it
>inb4 y r u posting
I have some threads open in a side window while writing a paper, it helps me think

>>11517449
Good and evil, in the common sense of the term, is subjective relative to God. It is true that there are things which are good and evil to us, but there can be nothing within God’s creation that is truly evil to him. Again, the creation of “evil” is necessary to display God’s power. I’m not sure how you’re getting confused over this. Maybe you should reword your argument.

memes aside. Can anyone list a collection of the specific criticism, of "logical proofs cannot be able to prove the god"?

gathering thoughts of me :
Kant's Noumenon argument
Scholas found hard to completely sustain aristotle because logics like Syllogism is hard to create, find new truth in general
criticisms coming from criticism of reductionism

>>11516251
And this water I'm drinking water perfectly fits the glass I poured it into. My word, it must have been divinely fine tuned to match those dimensions!

>>11517471
It’s not simply a bulleted list of his reasons. I posted the wager because it’s relatively short, but even then I had to link the page. So I’m not gonna summarize his thoughts when he has written them exactly how he wanted them to be read.

>>11517458
>book tries to prove that abraham's demon is the one true god worthy of worship
>blaspheming both the God of creation and everything divine by reading this crap is worth my time
no

>>11517475
>the creation of “evil” is necessary to display God’s power.
Nice god you have there

>>11517496
Why must God be omnibenevolent?

>>11516765
As someone who had a month-long "mystical" experience, you're 100% right. Explaining something like this to someone who doesn't understand it just causes dogmatism. It's why people hate Jung -- 99% of people who like him don't understand his system at all, and 100% of people who hate him don't understand his system. If you've had the experience, you see that he's saying through psychology what others have said through theology, philosophy, esotericism, literature, art, etc, for thousands of years.

There's a fundamental, spiritual aspect to life that people are just totally missing out on these days. Now, that spiritual aspect can be justified within material systems, but if you're in the know, material systems are just another way to say the same thing, if you're saying it right.

I'd really suggest exploring your dreams. Eventually you start having non-waking ego lucid dreams with relative frequency, and can essentially go on pilgrimages through your unconscious psyche to learn about yourself and the world around you. Meditation is incredibly useful in this as well. It's also very helpful to have friends in on it, especially as a shared effort in dreaming -- you can actually create "a" collective unconscious amongst yourself and start seeing shared motifs, symbols, narratives.

I'm not shilling Jung as a Bible though, almost everything out there is useful in one way or another. I think he's just good due to the fact that he's had his own personal mystical initiation, but approaches things from a secular angle anyone can appreciate (if you understand that the Christianity stuff here and there is to some extent there to save face -- his Seven Sermons of the Dead are pretty heretical, for example).

>>11517529
>be me
>rarely get to lucid dream
>whenever I go lucid I molest and rape everyone I can get my hands on knowing there aren't any lasting consequences
I don't think I can get over this hurdle

>>11517520
He is, but others understanding of good differs, so for the evil ones, and the evil ones only, he is not omnibenevolent.

>>11516641
You can't blindly trust perceptions. What you call a state of "heightened perception" is a state of heightened suggestibility.

>>11517529

Thanks for the response. I am actually interested in Jung, but I've only looked into his theory of cognitive functions. I purposely avoided reading the more complicated stuff for the exact reasons you've pointed out. If I had done that I would be among the 99% of people who like him but don't understand him. To me, it would be incomprehensible because I lack his perceptions. As smart as the man was science currently lacks to tools nessecary to explain what he meant.

I do not feel like I am ready to read the bible and other spiritual texts yet for this exact reason, although I will probably read it now, and then again after I have spiritual experiences. I just have a gut feeling that this isn't an issue of intellect, but of perception, and that thinking hard enough won't solve my problems. If you deconstruct a belief structure you get down to the axioms on which the entire structure lies, but then you've simply hit a dead end. What are you supposed to do with them? Wait 5000 years to see if the axioms are right or wrong when science maybe catches up? So for me, potential methods of increasing my perception were the logical next step.

>>11517543

I'm no expert, but you should probably actively explore that without shame. I'd wager that if anyone really went deep down into their subconcious, that they would encounter horrifying things, what Jung called "The shadow" (I believe so anyway). He also said that "“No tree, it is said, can grow to heaven unless its roots reach down to hell.”. And I believe that to be true. Just be careful when confronting the fucked up shit within you, small steps.

>>11517543
Ha, I had the exact same problem at first! The first good handful of times I went lucid I'd try to fuck something. The worst of my libido was unleashed, as my waking ego consciousness just went nuts over the freedom it had.

This is a clear sign of some issues of repression, a lack of properly instilled purpose, and a lack of self-discipline. It can be overcome. Meditation and reflection really help with that.

After over a year of collecting my own dreams and the dreams of my friends, I'm only just now starting to not be a total fuck up. Honestly, the experience is pretty humbling, because it showed me just how arrested my development had been.

>>11517592

But everything we know comes from perception. How do you know that your perceptions of "empirically proven" phenomena are legit? How do you know any perception you have is legit? Answer: you don't know. We all just assume that our basic perceptions do not decieve us. So what's the difference between that assumption and going a step further and concluding that other forms of perception might also be legit? Logically it's the same beast, and if it's not how do you draw a line that isn't arbitrary? Do you say "Well, if everyone has a similar perception that perception must be legit". But you can't know that for sure. What if the way we're biologically wired makes us percieve stuff wrongly or even shit that isn't there? It's a really hard problem.

>>11517593
I am well aware of the concept of the shadow, but thanks for taking the time to respond with a serious reply.
>>11517594
If going lucid happened to me more often I would certainly rather be exploring dreamscapes than engaging in base fantasy, but as soon as libido saw freedom it took the opportunity. I also feel like my lucidity switches off much more quickly once I have a goal in mind and I go back to experiencing a dream I have little say in. Hopefully as I get more experiences I'll be able to explore some more interesting sides of my inner workings.

>>11516971
Takes one to know one, huh.

>>11516251
Baby's first attempt at apologetics.

>>11516178
Disprove the ontological argument.

Protip: you can't.

>>11517632
Thanks, filtered.

>>11517543
>>11517594
When I had a few lucid dreams I wouldn't do anything. Just stare at my surroundings trying to absorb as much detail as I can, eventually forgetting that I was dreaming and losing control. It's not the same as being awake, it's even more shit, mostly as I don't have the same control of my thoughts and the same level of being conscious as awake.

{P(φ)∧□∀x[φ(x)→ψ(x)]}→P(ψ)
P(¬φ)↔¬P(φ)
P(φ)→◊∃x[φ(x)]
G(x)⟺∀φ[P(φ)→φ(x)]
P(G)
◊∃xG(x)
φ ess x⟺φ(x)∧∀ψ{ψ(x)→□∀y[φ(y)→ψ(y)]}
P(φ)→□P(φ)
G(x)→G ess x
E(x)⟺∀φ[φ ess x→□∃yφ(y)]
P(E)
□∃xG(x)

checkmate athists

>>11516950
Filtered.

You've been bested at your own game, tripfaggot. There's nothing you can do to reverse what I've just done. You wanted attention so you donned a tripcode. Now you literally cease to exist for me. I'll never see another one of your posts ever again. You can respond to my post but it will be utterly, utterly futile. I won't be able to read it. Chances are others have filtered you based on your vain attempts to draw attention to yourself in this thread, but did not announce it. In addition to this, others will follow my example and filter you based on this post. You have no recourse here, no plan, no fallback. If you had just posted anonymously you could have gotten the attention you so desperately need by making actual thought-provoking, intelligent posts. Now your world will just get smaller and smaller until your posts aren't visible by anyone.

You are defeated, tripfaggot. Completely and thoroughly vanquished.

>>11517662
please explain this logically in something other than greek emoji

>>11517658
>>11517626
Well, I don't know if people make this distinction anywhere, but I've found there's different types of lucidity and honestly "waking ego lucidity" (the "I'm in a dream!" lucidity that pulls YOU, the one reading this, into the dream) is not as useful as "Dream Self Lucidity" when your dream ego -- separate from your waking ego -- understands that it's in a dream.

I find that the waking ego tends to go full ham on the wish fulfillment, sexual fantasies, flight, being a great warrior, all that kind of stuff. Which is fun, but gets in the way. When it's my dream self running things on their own, knowing that they're in a dream, things go into a lot more interesting directions.

I'm sure waking ego lucidity is useful once you've mastered self-discipline, but dream ego lucidity has huge benefits. I'm not sure exactly how to cultivate it, though, aside from reflecting on the nature of dreams and reality.

>>11517529

Can you please explain the process of "exploring your dreams". How does one go about doing that? Is there some kind of book you can recommend us to get into it?

>>11517618
not even sure if you're the same anon because this post is contradictory to the former, anyways that's a lot of talk for just saying a posteriori is shit lmao.

>>11517763
Man and his symbols by Carl Jung. You could start with Freud, but many of his presuppositions forming the substrate of his theories are now considered flatly incorrect.

>>11517802
Thanks, filtered.

>>11517182
AHAHAHAHA...aha..oh..hahahaHAHAHAHAH

Try reading PoS for real this time brainlet

>>11517763
Hm, well, first of all you really ought to be recording all your dreams. Personally, I have a discord friend group, and I've gotten everyone to share their dreams there -- I take everyone's dreams, including my own, and put them all into a single compendium of dreams. This helps with enthusiasm and interest, it's very easy to keep up dreamposting as a source of fun little in-jokes and the like.

As well, I'd say, take your dreams seriously. I'd heavily recommend reading up on Jung, Man and His Symbols is a great introduction, written by Jung and a few of his followers. His structure is definitely helpful, but, I take a somewhat different approach from Jung, personally. At least, I haven't seen him describe the exploration of dreams in the way I think of it.

The unconscious psyche can be represented in many different ways: a tree striving towards the light, a "genius" or "angel" or some other higher power guiding you on your way, but when it comes to exploring dreams I like to think of it as unexplored terrain. You are on an expedition through the vast reaches of your mind, you should think of yourself more like a cartographer than anything else. Especially if you're doing this with friends, you're all explorers, and you'll find that your dreams start syncing up, as though continents are merging together. Keep careful track of the locale and of the natives. You'll find that you have your own set of locations and cast of characters that appear time and again.

1/2

>>11517879
Personally, I say always err on the side of agency of the dream. Rather than wake up and go rooting through for symbolism immediately, reflect on the humanity of the characters you encountered, or on the reality of the environment. Some dream people are NPCs, simple algorithms with literal walk cycles, but some are seemingly just as sentient as your are. Some even more so. If you expect your dreams to be a living, vibrant unknown, that will become a more likely outcome. To some extent, I do think of it as a "deprivileging" of physical reality: you shouldn't deny the humanity of the characters in your dreams. Their emotions can be indistinguishable from those of any other person who exists outside your ego-self.

That said, once you get the hang of having regular dreams (btw you'll have to quit smoking weed for this if that's something you do), you'll have to integrate the lessons into your waking life to make progress in the dream world. The Naskapi tribe believe that important dreams come to those who live by the advice of the "Great Man", the unconscious, essentially, and I'd independently found that to be true myself. So, if your dreams seem to say you have some unresolved issue here, or that you could be doing better there, you're going to have to try and do and be better. As well, I personally find that I cannot have a successful dream life if I am too sheltered: if I sit around in my house for too extended a period of time, I stop having dreams. This may be different for you if you have a highly visual imagination.

As well, not to shill strange philosophies, but the occult is also helpful here. Nothing in particular, just whatever branch of the occult you find interesting as long as it has a magic system. Why? Because magic can be performed in dreams, and magic is a symbolic language your unconscious mind can understand. I've performed a couple rituals in my dreams with success, and have learned a lot about myself from them.

I'd also recommend learning the tarot or some other symbolic system, again to give your unconscious the tools to speak to you directly. Hell, you could indulge yourself into the lore and symbolism of the MCU films for all it matters, as long as it's a system you ingrain in yourself to the point where it starts showing up in your dreams. If you wake up muttering jargon, you're headed in the right direction.

Your dreams will vary, but if you believe your unconscious has something to teach you, you will learn. If you want to apply some metaphysical structure to that, it won't hurt. I'm a loser nerd, so sometimes a wizard comes to me in my dreams and teaches me things from a book with pages made of crystal. Sometimes it's a wise old woman giving me mushrooms and sending me through a "cartoon character takes acid" caricature of an acid trip. Sometimes it's Satan appearing in the form of a cat to dole out prophecies.

Hopefully that helps, it's a bit of a freeform process!

>>11517790

> not even sure if you're the same anon because this post is contradictory to the former

I am, and it's not really contradictory because I never claimed that this "heightened perception" I spoke of is infallible. I simply pointed out that we have no actual proof of validity for even the most basic perceptions. So in other words, as far we're concerned basic perception and "heightened perception" are equally faliible and unsubstantiated. I say this because there are many people who shit on "spiritual experiences" but consider their basic perceptions as self-evidently true for some reason. On what basis can you make that claim?

> anyways that's a lot of talk for just saying a posteriori is shit lmao.

I like speaking like a layman, probably because I pretty much am one.

>>11517932
Oh, as well, the book "Lucid Dreaming: Gateway to the Inner Self" by Robert Waggoner I found useful, though a bit dogmatic for my taste at times. Still, it goes much, much further than the typical "hey bro you should like do reality checks and write down your dreams!". I've heard lots of talk on Stephen LaBerge's "Exploring the World of Lucid Dreaming" but I haven't read it.

Really, aside from Jung and a smattering of lucid dreaming information, the most important thing is to apply your own schema to the dream. The machinations of your dream world will necessarily be different than those of another. What appeals to you will be different. I would personally recommend things leaning more mythological, mystical, etc, but you don't need that. I think it's fun, but if you want your dreams to be more grounded and reflective of waking life, you can steer them that way as well.

>>11516178
Stupid fucking posi shitter I'll beat you to within an inch of your life retarded fucking faggot thinking his rejection of abstract objects, terms and predicates as avoidable language invalidates ontology come to maryland posi faggot I'll fucking beat you over the head with the summa see how unactionable ontology is now that you're bleeding out in the gutter because of it huh. Stupid faggot subsuming some noumenal bullshit supposing there's logical consistency to the universe separate from perception, a hyperbolization of kant's failed theories picked up by the first analytics and taken to retard-lengths by the second... little faggot wouldn't know logic if it throat fucked you kill yourself.