It was an interesting video. Martin Ball addressed much of what I said right in the opening minutes! He is obviously a bright guy who has spent a lot of time thinking about these matters. Your summary of the video is very good and hits most of the key themes!

My main issue with his point of view is that he is entirely too beholden to the concept of non-duality. He sees everything through the lens of non-duality. Reality is, from his perspective, that any dinstiction between "me" and "other" is a false construct of the ego. My mind, your mind, and in fact all conscioussness is simply one and the same. We are all just the many facets of the singular universal mind. And distinction between you, me, god, universe, etc. is all false. Enlightenment (or "liberation" is the realization and living out of that truth.

But I dont believe any of that to be true. I believe that we are all on our own, fragile sparks of life that will be extinguished one day, never to return. Reality, life, existence... these things are hard and confusing and often seem to lack explanation or deeper meaning. From the beginning of time man has invented innumerable interprettive constructs through which to understand life and find meaning. Non-duality is just another one of those false constructs.

Reality is that we are alone. When your body dies you end. The universal mind is not a truth that is revealed by psychedelics, it is a delusion that calms the deep fears of the heart that one day all this will end.

I believe there is no right or wrong in terms of what to believe or what to do with your life.
The most important is to be happy with whatever you do!

You can seek enlightement, or you can just dismiss this notion - it doesn't make you worse or better person.
I think we aren't alone is a sense that there is more than material world and universal mind is not a delusion. Except this is exactly what delusional person would say, and there is no way to objectively prove your view or mine Maybe we are all here a bunch of deluded crazies

You have to dive into the ocean yourself to see if it is really as bottomless as they say. Make your own story and reality, and play this game however the hell you want it to play!

Can you give me an example?




Yes. I think that it would be interesting to find out how "things" are and why they are the way they are. Also this>



If someone were to prove that the above statement were not true, i would be a very happy person.

xss27 describes the, "hard question of consciousness". Is it, emergent, arising from or created by organized matter? Or, is it, non-local, being primordial and just received/perceived by the brain? NOBODY knows the definitive answer to this query!


"Ego-death", as a term, is not so much a, true/false question, BUT, a reference to an experience that DEFINITIVELY can be had by humans during, non-ordinary states. The question of whether it is "real", or not, isn't relevant. The term(ego-death), describes an actual experience that CAN be had, no doubt, call it what you will.


A bit of precision in language aids the discussion. Sentiments, beliefs and feelings aside. Typically those who deny, ego-death, as a potential experience, have not "had" it. Any person, or at least most, CAN experience a state of awareness that has been 100% stripped of ALL individual references. Using psychedelics to achieve this state is undoubtedly, tricky. The "dose" necessary is typically close to a "black out" threshold, after which there is no memory of the experience. If no memory of the experience is brought back into the ordinary state, the experience(ego-death), is lost.


It is the case, that often, even staunch, "primacy of matter" atheists, who experience said ego-death, will subsequently recognize that the potential of "non-local" consciousness MUST be entertained, their dogmatic insistence on an "emergent" consciousness having been shattered.


Peace

There are different ways in wich ego death can occur. An experience can be so immersive that you simply, often for only just a while, can "forget" the construct of your ego. I would say this is the lightest version of it. And it can also happen without psychedelic drugs or years of meditation.

Most of the time, you don't forget your ego totally and completely this way.

I think a good way to explain this, is to see the ego not just as a picture of yourself, but as a sort of map.
Normally we are constantly checking if what's on the map, is still there in real life. Or whether our facade holds up. Whether what we don't want to see on that map is blocked out well enough. But sometimes we can forget the whole map for a while, though it still exists.

But the map can also be completely obscured or out of reach so that it feels like it doesn't even exist anymore. In such a case, we can no longer use the map to locate parts of ourselves and we can only directly experience what is there.
This can be so extensive that it even includes the notion of having a body, or the ability to use language.

A way in wich this can happen, is through extreme sensory overload. When so much information is being fired at us, that it becomes impossible to properly categorize it and locate it on the map. Another way is by direct dissociation.

Another quick point. Consciousness being, emergent or non-local, aside. The reality that, EVERYTHING, humans included, is part of a larger whole, from which it sprang and is sustained, is an observation and NOT a belief. In a rather mundane sense, SELF EVIDENT! What one makes of this irrefutable realization????

Peace

That is definately true, and very important. I don't think it is possible to live well without it. We humans need to be a part of something larger. Without the feeling of this being so, we're lost.

If there actually is something like thanatos, it must be rooted in feelings of disconnectedness with the world.

Luckily, we do not need to completely shed our ego, to realize and see it.

Good points. And I must clarify that my perspective is not proven fact, and I understand that. I was stating how I view things at this point in life. I know that my perspective may be incorrect, but it is the one that makes the most sense to the man standing in these shoes.

And I also acknowledge that "delusion" is probably too polemical of a term. Basically I believe that the reality of existence is harsh and challenging. We live a short time and then lose everything. If one were to go through everyday dwelling on that then many people would not even want to be alive. All the belief systems which posit continued existence beyond death arose to pacify the raw pain of stark reality.

I believe the best solution is to reconnect with nature. I am a big fan of aspects of Gaian theory. I do not believe that Earth is a being. But I do believe that worldwide natural systems exist to preserve life . I believe that it can be a helpful construct to view individual organisms as "cells" in the "body" of a living Earth. It gives a sort of purposeful interpretive lens through which to view things.

But even more important than that is simply taking time to reconnect with nature by BEING IN nature. There is a primal reconnecting with nature that occurs when someone goes alone into a wild place that is mostly untouched by man. The life that is there, the majesty of the landscape, there is a power, a centering, invigorating energy that brings peace and healing, all inspite of the inescapable, impending mortality that all of us must face.

One day I will be gone and I accept that. But I will live on in a way in the lives that I touch and in the genes that I pass on. This is enough for me. I dont need to believe that my consciousness will continue in order to face this life.

Nisargadatta is a great example. A man of average intelligence who trusted implicitly the words of his guru and practiced self-inquiry for three years in his spare time whilst running his shop business.

Also, see next point.



I understand your position. All I can say is that pursuit is never ending, circular, and leads nowhere.. it doesn't amount to anything and will not answer the only question that really needs answering - who am I?

Unfortunately unless you've had a personal experience that has cracked the door a little bit then you'll always be looking outwards for answers as opposed to examining in the other direction.

"'Have you seen God?' I asked. 'And if you have, can you enable me to see him? I am willing to pay any price, even my life, but your part of the bargain is that you must show me God.'

'No,' he (Ramana Maharshi) answered. 'I cannot show you God or enable you to see God because God is not an object that can be seen. God is the subject. He is the seer. Don't concern yourself with objects that can be seen. Find out who the seer is.' He also added, 'You alone are God,' as if to rebuke me for looking for a God who was outside and apart from me."



It's a fairly logical rationalisation and conclusion, to file it under voodoo magic. But that's the problem.. it's only logical and is devoid of intuition.

I would agree that the pursuit is never ending but i would not say that it was circular. And it does lead somewhere. It only doesn't amount to anything if one is expecting an end point to their knowledge. Looking outwards is not unfortunate. The same goes for for looking inwards. Surely it is the act of looking that is important?



I do not fully understand what you are trying to say there. On the surface it seems like a defensive comment. Who brought up "voodoo magic"? I have said what i believe with a caveat that it is possible that i maybe wrong. If we are discussing things that are subjective in nature then i would classify intuition as coming under the subjective banner. For example one persons intuition could be that awareness is refracted into physical matter and someone else's intuition is that the awareness/refraction theory is untrue. Maybe neither one person or the other's intuitive conclusion is right.
Saying that someone, who questions these experiences and wants to back them up with some kind of proof, lacks intuition is a bit of a cop out.

Proving whether consciousness is, emergent OR non-local, may prove impossible from a classical perspective. Ego, really is a necessary psychologic operational function for an awareness wedded to a body/mind organism. It isn't good or bad. One must perceive a sense of autonomous agency to function in meat space-time. Now, being "egotistical" or radically solipsistic can be dysfunctional.


It is useful to recognize that at some fundamental level, we are not our egos. The ego can be thought of as a, steersman, "driving" our sense of self across space-time. It allows us to operate in "concensus reality".


The psychedelic mind state can engender intervals during which one EXPERIENCES a loss of personal attachment to the ego/steersman. This can sensed as a "death" of sorts, as ones sense of autonomous cross time control SEEMS to be replaced by an EXTERNAL controller...God, the Source, the Wellspring, whatever. This is an ancient(in human history) experience, and is the stuff of myth and religious story telling. All traditions express this, often in allegorical terms. Some people choose to, "believe" the actuality of said, "outside controller", others recognize it as a metaphor for physical death, followed by rebirth or resurrection as control agency returns to the ego when the "trip" terminates.


I'm fascinated how few folks recognize or at least describe their, mystic state/psychedelic, journeys in these terms. This is an archetypal "storyline", deeply embedded in Western thought, but, also recognizable in esoteric traditions from all cultures. Plant induced, mystic experiencing, has been with humanity well into antiquity.


Peace