Below is a two-page preview of my final, last work–the sum of an invincible, undefeatable theology and philosophy that is (is believed to be) the actual nature of the actual world.

It is good to be back, if only for the moment. Chapters or segments of chapters will follow in the weeks and months to come.

Keep thinking, people.

Phenomenal Graffiti

Nice to see you back, though I have no idea what any of that means ~ perhaps you can sum up for us?

What are the four conscious beings, how do they exist and causally effect our minds [badly I might add lol]. An infinite mind would think infinitely, and I wonder how that could translate to finite minds, or why it would want to deny us our own thoughts?

If wise, such a mind would make sense, and the world would make sense unto itself. Ergo existence and our minds would be self contained [causally] and independent of external factors and noumenon.

Hello Amorphous,

Pleasant to have your reply above anyone else.

As we exist and experience in our own closed system of what one experiences as opposed to anyone else, the external world or that which we do not not cannot experience is left up to the imagination, and it comes down to whether or not one believes that what one imagines objectively exists.

The Four External Ones, if they exist, exist simply by existing but are creations of a background mind substance that is the only " infinite mind". The four externals are indeed finite by having specific content of consciousness at specific moments, as we do. We gain our experience from them by a sort of mental repeating or replication: they experience first, then somehow pass their experiences onto us, we only think they are just “our” experiences.

Further, in this “mythology” there are no mind-independent noumea, just persons and the mind stuff outside and behind all persons. The “inanimate” things we experience, such as rooms, houses, cities, etc. are experiential simulates arising from and part of ourselves.


That’s only true if there are no derivative informations, but in the op i thought you were implying there to be an infinite mind, to wit such derivative and collaborating informations derive?

I do think there must be infinity and it must contain all that derives from it i.e. The universe/s. I equally think there must be ‘the greatest thing’ [made a thread on it] which would include both.
There must also be the >means< to how that all works ~ its ‘function’, which could be something like your four external ones, though i dont know the background reasoning for that specifically.

In this our philosophies depart, for me phenomena are as real as that from which they derive, otherwise you have ‘less real’ deriving from reals? Doesn’t mean i am right and you are wrong, i just want to see how that is substantiated. :slight_smile:


I previously held there to be an infinite conscious mind, and as we must use ourselves as the basis for any imagination of beings outside the “veil” of our own person and personal experience. An infinite mind, as it experiences itself, would probably feel and experience itself in the manner of a human being (albeit, perhaps, without sensory experience of having a body or a particular experience, as there would, for one thing, be no mirror in which to see such a thing). I transformed an infinite conscious mind to an infinite unconscious mind, with conscious minds…even that of God…dwelling “inside” or as smaller, finite phenomena within the infinite unconsciousness. Regardless, derivative information for the human mind can derive from either an infinite conscious mind or a finite conscious mind in the external world. It’s all a matter of who has the content first, and some means by which the one having the content first passing on that content to a “lesser” being within a smaller, even more finite dimension. The infinite unconsciousness, in this revision, supplies the material substance for subjective experience and its content, as it is fundamentally subjective experience independent of sensory, cognitive and emotional content, but is nevertheless the source of that content through aggregation of its material (strong emergence “magic”, I know).

There must be infinity, that much is intuitively true, and it must indeed contain all that derives from it. The infinite unconsciousness can cover that as well as an infinite consciousness. Conscious minds are constructs consisting of a subject of experience (‘the experiencer’) and that which it experiences. A simple system, in which all that exists are subjects, what the subjects are experiencing, and the surrounding unconscious “fog” that supplies the substance making up the subject and that which each subject experiences. The Four Minds are simply the largest and most influential “children” arising from the Unconsciousness, with all other consciousnesses (subsumed in the 5th Dimension) deriving their information and content from the 4, which derive theirs from the background Unconsciousness.

I think we don’t need mind-independent objects and events, particularly if one thinks they are or are composed of something that is not subjective experience, as subjective experience is the only that that “shows up” or makes its existence known. It does not follow, at least to me, that something that is not subjective experience can pull subjective experience (which is fundamentally the fact or act of experiencing or someone experiencing) from itself, if it is something other than that. I think our representative content does not float independently in the external world (or “sit” in that world in foundational connectivity to other objects), but exist only as things within the mind.

And I agree: when it comes to imagination or belief of what exists or might exist in the external world, no one is right or wrong.

I miss these types of deep philosphical convo. Spent too much time in the no man’s land of “normal thinking and relationships” for too long.

I think that perception is focused awareness and any kind of mind/consciousness has an essential awareness. Also that perception must have the ability to perceive itself [not necessarily the same as self awareness [e.g. Animals don’t have that but they are aware they exist]] such to transfer and correlate info ~ to perceive.
If so then it has its own mirror if you will.

Sure but that would include all, and so what we are thinking would be part of that. If so then why are our minds so limited? Or is it that we are a focussing of said mind, and in so doing are limited to the object/s of that perception. If you can, take a look at this thread…


In it i have made opaque arguments stating that metaphysically there is the distinct and the transient, that e.g. The physics of sound and light are interchangeable, but music and colour are specifically and observably not! So reality has the distinct and the indistinct. If you agree, then there can be a duality between an infinite mind [indistinct] and limited mind [distinct], even though reality contains both so ultimately the duality is resolved into one. But that’s ‘ultimately’ or at the infinite [or otherwise overall/greater] level, and there remains a duality aside from that. I know it sounds contradictory, but hey, we live in this reality which is duel and paradoxical because of that.

Interesting where you said about content receival; if all derives from the infinite, where would there be distinction, duality? Don’t finite things/persons manifest their own distinctive informations and qualia? If not it would seem that the duality is in the infinite which is problematic to say the least. If otherwise you are saying that the infinite mind is the ‘derivative source’, then there is no problem. Creation is perhaps like that, whereas we don’t create anything, merely modify what is already there imho. There remains a metaphysical distinctiveness somewhere in all that though, the infinite cannot be also finite, or cannot be the source/cause and the effect, as the later requires distinctiveness.

I am beginning to think that creation is not an event nor beginning, but a universal everlasting essentiality of reality. It makes sense in more general terms, that e.g. Survival is a need for a reason, and that reason cannot pertain to individuals or species, as they all die out eventually. Only the ‘means’ survives, we could say.

As i see it there is no such thing as ‘unconsciousness’ only consciousness and non consciousness e.g. Our unconscious is not conscious in any sense of the word, it’s just background function. We could say that the infinite ‘unconsciousness’ pertains to how infinity translates, to its function perhaps? Saves having a duality of mind tis all.
The ‘fog’ thence pertains to the differentiation of focus/subjectivity, where to see a thing one must not see other things [what focus is], and this would [to the subjective observer] maintain a necessary distinctiveness between parties.

Problem; if there is an infinite observer, it would counteract the particular observer? We would be able to observe this. Somewhere along the line there is distinction, and the world must make sense to itself ~ be causal.

So rocks are part of a mind as if like its body or something. Hmm fundamentally any real makes itself known ~ cause and effect, object and observation in the relative sense. A photon or an atomic particle exists without something perceiving it. Unless you are stating that the observation isn’t making effect as observations in the relative sense do? Perhaps there is a difference between perceiving and observing e.g. Us looking at something isn’t observation in the relativity sense.

The logic is true in itself there, but e.g. The other way around, we the subjective experiencer can pull subjective experience from say a camcorder, which is not a subjective experiencer [or the experiencer in that relationship at least]. Equally our subjective mind is pulling our experience via physical instrumentation of the brain.

perhaps the subject is the object in the observers eye. in which case we are talking about relative metaphysical positions rather than objects and subjects specifically as distinct.

On a side note, perception mind, consciousness, awareness, et. al. are all ultimately nothing but experience. As far as we and our existence is concerned, we are nothing but experience and we do and can do nothing but experience. The only differentiation is the type of experience. In the end, there is nothing to us save sensory experience, emotional experience, and cognitive experience of some sort at any given moment in time. Whatever exists, if we are to know it exists and not merely imagine or have faith it exists, must appear to us as something experienced, and something experienced by oneself. Everything takes the form and can only appear in the form of something experienced by you.

Info or ‘information’, as you put it, only appears or manifests as something experienced by a particular person. If it cannot be experienced, it is not experienced and does not appear before that person, and is not known by the person to exist, as it does not arrive or appear as something experienced by that person. The question we are all facing, then, is how something that is not experienced in the external world translates or becomes or is represented by something that one experiences.

As far as the ‘mirror’ I mentioned earlier. I was just saying that the four Beings may or may not experience having a particular personal appearance or even having a body, thus there is no corporeal form that may ‘mirror’ back at them if, say, they were able to look in a mental mirror.

There is a duality in which there is you, a particular subject of experience as opposed to every other subject of experience in the whole of existence (if solipsism is false and others exist)…and everything that you personally experience either in the forms of the sensory world around you and the sensations of your body, your thoughts in whatever cognitive form they appear, and your emotions…and then there is everything that is not you, and not what you are experiencing…in the form of everyone else and whatever exists in the external world. That’s pretty much it, when talking about existence.

If you don’t believe that you simply happened to magically pop into existence, and your experiences did not magically pop into existence after previously not existing in the first place.…then the structure that is you and whatever you experience at moment x had to come from somewhere, that is, had to derive from something already in existence before that something took the form of you and whatever you are experiencing “now” (and in the next moment, and in the next, and in the next, ad infinitum or until death…if death is indeed the end of experience and is not merely transformation into some new form of experience).

It’s all Atomism in a nutshell. In the same way we believe in atoms, and believe that a tennis ball, for example, is made out of atoms, the subject of experience (you) and that which the subject experiences (everything you experience, sensory or otherwise, from moment to moment), is finite in the sense that you are experience only a certain something at a certain time and nothing else, and that existence, for you, only appears in this form and nothing else. Everything outside you and what you are experiencing at a certain moment x is purely imaginary and speculative, as existence only appears or manifests as you and what you experience at moment x. But if you do not magically pop into existence “as is” moment by moment, then something outside you is creating you moment by moment, and it continuously exists and by lucky accident, has the materials necessary to form YOU and what is is you are experiencing. And even more, in order to create YOU, it needs subjective experience and not something that is not subjective experience, as you are, are made of, and do nothing but subjectively experience in some form.

(whew that was exhausting)

In my view, subjective experience can only come from more subjective experience or experience-substance, so that we can throw out the weirdness of transforming something that is not subjective experience into subjective experience or having subjective experience to magically pop into existence from previous non-existence “as is”, without derivative meaning. An infinite mind, or infinite experience-stuff, can do the trick of having before there is a you and what you experience at moment x, the mind-stuff necessary to keep creating you and what you experience at moment, x, y, z. (keep going) , and it seems to do so autonomously. If there are 4 Consciousnesses that determine your content, then its all about the infinite mind-stuff first creating them and what they experience at moment x, then taking the material of that once they’re done and making it into what you experience at your following, secondary, moment y. It’s just that simple.

It is interesting, in your thread about music, that sound cannot become vision, so to speak. It is odd that conscious experience is so individuated and diverse, with one aspect of consciousness unable to transform into another, save “in one’s own mind”. But I don’t think that something that is not consciousness has any business with consciousness, as it must be consciousness in the first place to create still more consciousness.

I suppose what I mean by ‘unconsciousness’ is ‘non-consciousness’ in the form of ‘unfocused consciousness’ or mind-stuff as opposed to ‘mind’…in the sense of someone (a subject of experience that is essentially the experience of being a subject of experience) and that which the subject experience. My use of ‘unconsciousness’ is derived from Sigmund Freud, who used ‘unconsciousness’ to mean consciousness that is not or that which lies beneath everything you are consciously experiencing [consciousness that is currently invisible and imperceptible as it is not the finite focus].

And that’s my point, exactly. Existence appears, to us, only in the form of focus–where we “see” (experience!) a thing or a particular array of things but not other things. What lies outside that “focus” is imaginary and speculative (to us, as it could objectively exist) until it becomes part of the next “focus” when the previous one changes shape or disappears. The subjectivity outside the focus provides the material substance and form of the focus.

Yes. Rocks, for example, or the environment (trees, the bodies of other people, buildings, cars) that you experience as things existing outside your “physical” body and surrounding it) are actually composed of the material substance of your experience of it, and are part of your mind, as opposed to their being something outside or independent of your mind. They are appendages to the subject or self that extend seemingly beyond the self but are actually extended aspects of the self and its experience. Even in the belief that brains create consciousness, this is so. There is the consciousness and the experienced tree that the brain creates, and in beliefs that there is a mind-independent tree in the external world, there is this external tree that is not a creation of the brain or something the brain did not create, but that nonetheless transmitted light, etc. to the eyes of the individual that transmitted to the brain allowing it to create the “experiential illusion” of the tree one experiences, which is distinct from the external tree in that the experienced tree would wink out of existence if something messed up or interfered with the brain’s “kicking out” of this experience. I simply throw out the existence of the external tree, and the brain’s ability to magically create subjective experience. As such, I do not believe in the existence of physical particles made up of something that is not subjective experience, as I cannot fathom how something that is not subjective experience can come up with subjective experience, if it is not subjective experience from the “get go”…that is, it is not subjective experience itself.

I don’t see how the brain creates consciousness or subjective experience. I simply do not see how neurons can produce something that is not more physical biological material, assuming non-experience exists and the brain, in the external world, consists of non-experience. It does not follow, when you really look at it outside the popular hypnosis that the brain generates consciousness, how neurons can pull subjective experience out of themselves and the atoms that make them (neurons) up (speaking “in-universe” when it comes to the belief that the physical exists, or that atoms exist). Subjective experience is the fact or act of experiencing, so it does not follow how something that is not the fact or act of experiencing can create or pull the fact or act of experiencing from itself, if it is not that in the first place.

Good convo, again.


I see it that awareness perceives and is then aware of that which it is perceiving, then that is the experiential thing. Opposite to what you said, so one of us must be right lol. As this process is perpetual while conscious, there is an ongoing sense of self-in-the-experience. This is why some people consider that they think in words, yet when unconscious there is clearly a decrease in experience. This gets convoluted if we say that awareness itself is an experience [in which case you are right], but the decrease in experience to an eventual zero, suggests to me that at the deepest root, awareness is not experiencing any ‘thing’. Nothing [a particular]is being held as an experience, and so at most we can say that awareness is it’s own category of experience i.e. Global and not specific. If so then awareness exists without [at zero] an experience, but experience doesn’t exist without awareness. Nirvana after all is non experience and yet total [global] awareness.

I wonder if the senses are the only thing occurring in the mind, if thought is always a kind of sense. Surely in intellectual, poetic and artistic pursuits, thought is that which observes the sensory info as it enters its perceptive sphere. It can equally ignore it; it must have the ability to detract from one sensory set of info to another and calibrate multiple readings [or it would be locked into one]. The brain has calibration centres which verify this in physical form ~ as if an instrument.
Add that to the above and base and crucible of awareness, and is the centre or hub of our subjectivity. …Caugant; the divine centre.

There is that which does not derive from or in the experiencer [at least in informational and dimensional terms]. Its impossible to prove but i know i exist, and you know you exist, and to state nothing else exists in reality would make one of us infinite and we know we are not. All philosophy including the sciences, relies on this basic tenet such to hold that mutual observation is a basis. A solipsist must therefore conclude that they are the whole of reality, and infinite [and probably insane lol].

Well some would say that the right conditions are what manifested the birth of the experiencer. I think that is true for sensory [earthly] experience, but how can something be subjective to the objective [object based universe], without being essentially distinct. In opposition we would have to state that there is no subjectivity, but that is not representative of our common observable experience. No metaphysical [equally real] subjectivity, and we would be tied to the senses like rag-dolls. They can get a bit sticky, but our thoughts are not bound entirely. An ability to manoeuvre and to calibrate must contain a function of connect/disconnect, such to read from all available sources.

…so I think we agree here, and on the ‘mechanistic’ side of the subconscious.

Indeed. I’d go further; it’s the same for all the qualia and their physical component, we can look right at sound and light but not find music or colour qualia. You can change sound into electrical signals and then into light [all energy types are transferable], but you cannot change music directly into colour [in a non-accompanying way], you can only make a representation of one to the other. This must mean that the metaphysical components on the physical side are transferable but on the qualia side of the coin are specifically and observably non-transferable. Ergo, experience which can only directly experience qualia, is not of the physical and transferable category of things, thus non-physical. We have to observe though, that the physics are the medium, if you change them you flick from one kind of qualia to another. Hence the physical has an ability/function to do that and vice versa [is how we came into this world].

That cleared a few cobwebs from the ole brain! :stuck_out_tongue:


All this sacred consciousness, but what’s truly real? Are we to believe angels are a primary power in the makeup of the universe?

No, more that awareness is primary and eternal, and that angels and humans are non-eternals yet paradoxically have awareness ergo are also fundamental at heart.

the metaphysics of a containing greater reality always exist beyond the physical, the universe. the only thing which survives is the means to a things existence and not the existence itself [is transient][all individuals/species dies].


Can we say flatworld philosophy?

not really, that the earth is not flat is a simple fact, here we are debating the metaphysics of mind. the language and terms may be problematic for some, but read between the lines and there is philosophy here.