#mind-space

So recently, some of you may have noticed, that I’ve started to use a certain phrase; a strange new bit of terminology, that I’ve employed more then a couple of times in the past few videos. And this neologistic nomenclature seems to have piqued a little interest among you; leaving those within you wondering, what could this peculiar designation mean exactly? And this uncertainty has undoubtedly left many of you feeling anxious and watchful. Well, have no fear, the Meta Sage is here. The term in question is: “mind-space.” What is a “mind-space”, exactly? And to what, does “mind space”, apply?

The first outside inquest concerning this matter came about a week or so ago, when a commenter by the name of “The Trickster”, mentioned it specifically. Thereafter, the subsequent comment exchange that followed, served as the inspiration for this current video. But, before we delve right into the thick of the matter, I’ll read the transcript of that comment exchange, as it happened; to both, act as a supplementation to this video, and to hopefully, delineate for you, the basic premise of the subject at hand.

So, here’s the transcript:

The Trickster: You are hanging on to an unfalsifiable narrative that reality is just, as you called it, a "mind-space”, and anyone with differing ideas are lost in their own externalizations, or something. Did I get that right?

Meta Sage: More or less. Nice implication, but the “mind-space” is undeniable because it’s already the case before anyone can think about it. It’s the “space-time” theory that’s a conceptualization, and needs all kinds of explanations and narrative to support it.

The Trickster: Ergo, the mind-space theory is ultimately an unfalsifiable concept you choose to believe. As it can't be properly substantiated or debunked. See, I like you, Meta Sage. I don't dislike the ideas you put forth. But only a sheep refuses to question a particular narrative. And I also like poking holes in a narrative. “Space-time”, on the other hand, can be tested, debated, analyzed without an absolute perception.

Meta Sage: You have the whole thing mixed up, which I noticed last week when we were talking in the comments on the other video. You glossed over what I just said and reaffirmed a falsehood. To move forward, you have to break free from this obstacle; and you can do this more easily by throwing out the old model of reality. Case in point: If we take two people, wipe their minds clean of all memory, then put them together in a room to discuss reality, the “mind-space” is already the foundation of everything, before even one word can be spoken. The context of existence is undeniable, and this is a reality before any debates, tests or analyzations take place. The “space-time”, on the other hand, cannot even be discussed without first learning a whole bunch of things that one then has to assume as reality. There’s a slight difference. You have to be able to discern between reality and abstractions.

The Trickster: Yeah. I won't write a long response. Rather, I'll ask this, why do you assume the idea of a “mind-space” is inherently present in the minds of said individuals you mentioned in your example? If you propose life is a dream, most without some sort of philosophical capacity would just miss the meaning of such an idea. While time itself is experienced by everyone regardless if its an illusory and misunderstood aspect of reality. Most know time is the measurement of events in existence. A mental construct? Yeah. To some extent. But the “mind-space” idea is an abstraction by its very nature. An unfalsifiable idea which only needs one to believe, and no argument posed to it can truly debunk or pick it apart. Just because the mind serves as a useful interface for interacting with and perceiving the world it doesn't automatically mean the mind creates reality. Yes, we are experiencing something. But let's not jump to conclusions. But look, I won't claim to know everything. If I've got things mixed up feel free to correct me.

Meta Sage: Thanks for keeping that so short. Thing is, I don't have to assume an idea of awareness. Awareness is already the foundation. Or, said another way, because there is awareness, abstract aspects like "ideas, concepts and theories", about a so-called "existence", can be formulated. Now keep in mind, when I speak of awareness, I'm not trying to assign it an identity. It's not a consideration of a "me" or "them", when it comes to awareness. There's no "people" existing to experience something, nor any "world", and it certainly isn't a human's mind that is creating anything. Identities are part of the dream. None of this phenomena is your true identity. So the idea is to be able to discern between awareness, abstractions, and dream phenomena. Conflating these aspects is where the confusion arises. It's the context within the field of dream phenomena, that I call the “mind-space”, and this is to clarify the fact that it isn't a physical location. "Physical locations" are ideas formulated about a purely mental phenomena. As is "time" also. These are all just ideas about illusion. Only awareness is reality.

So, that was the exchange. And so now, I’d like to expand a bit more on the subject, and really try to make things nice and sparkling clear. In a sense, this particular teaching could be considered one of the core foundational principles of Pure Potentialism. If one can manage to grasp this essential teaching, much of everything else will fall into place a lot more easily. Simply put, one of the core principles of Pure Potentialism is that the context of experiential reality is the mind, not physical locality. This is what is meant by “mind-space.” The apparent “space” that things seem to occupy, is made out of pure mind, not made out of objective materiality.

Sounds easy enough, but it’s actually rather difficult to realize; as the idea of materiality is ingrained deeply into people’s minds unconsciously, so maintaining crystal clear clarity will be a very strenuous mental effort to undertake; and, to top that off, people don’t find any ego gratification in this, thus, are generally dissatisfied with the cold stark truth, and, ultimately, will deeply yearn to find some other kind of narrative; one that provides an explanation that places a great deal more importance on their ego’s supposed existence. That’s what matters most to the average man. His precious self image. His dandy pride. His lofty self importance. It’s really quite rather disgusting actually. So it’s an uphill battle the entire way. Thus, the way to start to make some tracks towards clarity, is found in the lucid discernment between awareness, abstractions and dream phenomena.

This is the stumbling block that The Trickster got snagged on. He got SNAGGED on it. The Trickster can’t tell the difference between awareness, dream phenomena and abstractions. He wrongly conflates them, then argues his points premised on this falsehood. So, I’d like to break this right down for you, which will hopefully lend some much needed cohesion to the matter.

1. Awareness. What is awareness? Awareness is the absolute base, and allows all else to be possible. It’s the original face, and the undermost real true identity, despite having no physical embodiment, or manifest qualities. What will we find to be the case, after every single falsehood is stripped away? After peeling back all the thoughts, the identifications with a self, the objects around you, the entire world; only this, is what remains. Awareness. And so now that there is awareness, there can be some “thing”, to be aware of. Or, “something can be imagined to be the case”, to be more exact. Now that there is awareness, awareness can be aware of imagination. And the imagination isn’t a thing. It isn’t located anywhere. Indeed, the imagination itself could be said to be imaginary. Hence, said another way, awareness can dream. And since awareness can dream, there can now be an aspect called existential reality. This is what awareness does. It imagines existential realities, with varying degrees of fleeting qualities. And this brings us to the next factor: dream phenomena.

2. Dream phenomena. What is dream phenomena? Dream phenomena is an illusion. It’s what the imagination of awareness imagines into being. There are no limits as to the possible variations the illusion can be imagined to take. And the context of any such imagined illusory variation, is what I refer to as the “mind-space.” The “mind-space” are the borders that hold together a particular illusion. Wherein, consciousness can now find it’s ground, and quickly begin to establish identifications that will bring it self affirming fortification. If this consciousness ever manages to become refined, it will perhaps recognize itself in it’s own reflection, and suddenly become self aware. And once self aware, there can now be these aspects called thoughts, ideas, beliefs, concepts, theories, and knowledge. Now a consciousness can philosophize about it’s own supposed “existence”, and make speculations about who, what, when, where, why, and how, this is. Which, brings us to the next factor: abstractions.

3. Abstractions. What are abstractions? Abstractions are the intellectual activity of a consciousness. The constant yammering of the inner voice. The ongoing internal narrative we tell ourselves is the storyline of our supposed existence. The purely intellectual deductions, and hence purely intellectual conclusions, that we THINK; and then go on to call that a reality. This is where things get murky, and then awareness, dream phenomena and abstractions become a muddled amalgamation of confusion; where now, one will have a hard time telling the difference between the concept and the object of reality, and may even mix them up entirely. This is exactly how the truth of the “mind-space” became forgotten, and how we now think we live in this idea of a “time-space” context; and went on even further to suggest that, the one and only true sure thing, the “mind-space”, is just a belief, and that the “time-space” idea, is actually the true default reality. Enter The Trickster.

So now you can see some of the reasons how and why this whole thing became so deeply convoluted. If the only things you think to question are only staged on a foundation of materialism, and inquiry into the intro-spectrum is something that never occurs to you as important, you are a pretty lame example of a skeptic. The Trickster makes the assertion that only a sheep doesn’t question a particular narrative, yet, oddly enough, doesn’t think to question the narrative of his own materialistic belief system. Apparently, he accepts as an unquestionable given that “time-space”, the normative mainstream belief system that has the general consensus of the shepherd’s flock, is a fundamental truth. And that’s truly rich. But, overlooking that for the moment, let’s move on to address one of the central themes of his argument: that the “mind-space”, is unfalsifiable; and cannot be properly substantiated or debunked.

Well, as far as being “substantiated”, is concerned, everything I’ve said thus far should leave no doubt as to why this isn’t that hard to flesh out. It’s only your over-thinking process that makes it extraordinarily over-complicated. Awareness is the fundamental truth. This might be about the only thing one can say to be, “self evident.” Without awareness, you cannot cast doubt, or weigh evidence, in the first place. Without awareness, you cannot even begin to make substantiations. So, if you actually have consciousness, and are not just a mindless zombie, then your consciousness is substantiated just by being conscious. What other evidence would you require that you are conscious, other than being conscious?

And as for debunking; what the hell would you hope to debunk anyway, your own consciousness? That seems a bit counter intuitive; and this is what makes me think that you’re just playing the usual little bullshit games of a delusion whore. Stop it. You have an absolute foundation that establishes a proper setting for investigative inquiry, and you wish to lessen it through doubt, or minimize it to some secondary status behind inanimate matter, for what purpose exactly? Or, as he so eloquently put it, “it’s a useful interface for interacting with the world.” The “world”, he comfortably assumes; but what gives context to his entire existence, he harbors reservations. And by the way, no one ever said that the “mind-space” creates reality, so it’s actually YOU who jumped to those conclusions. As previously stated, awareness dreams of a “mind-space”, and the context within that “mind-space”, is what you are wrongly calling an objective world. The “mind-space” is not a useful tool for interfacing with a world, no. There is no world. The “mind-space” is the composition of reality itself.

And if I need to go over the fallacy of the whole time delusion again, then you probably haven’t been paying attention. I’ve already deconstructed the idea of space, and much the same will apply to the concept of time. Yes, the idea of time is only an abstraction. The patterns you see in nature do not represent time. One rotation of a planet around a star is not indicative of any objective factor operating in the universe. There is no universe. Time is a completely fabricated ‘relative-to-a-subject’ tool, and nothing more. And it doesn’t matter that you can test it, debate it, or analyze it, without an absolute perception, (whatever the hell that’s supposed to mean), it doesn’t change the fact that time itself doesn’t exist independently to the factor that is giving time significance. So assuming the concept of time as some kind of fundamental groundwork of reality is a big problem. There’s no problem, on the other hand, with the truth of the “mind-space” reality. The only problem here, is your over-thinking intellectualism. An over-thinking intellectualism that likes to over-think so much, it now believes it’s ideas are reality, and that the actual reality is an idea. Nice!

And when it comes to “falsification”, that whole idea is largely stupid. Why would you make the criteria for a phenomena to be considered scientifically, a prerequisite of having certain conditions where the phenomena can be shown to be false? Does that seem to be reasonable? If that’s the case, then gravity is unfalsifiable, as it can be tested ad nauseam, and never be shown to be false; and yet gravity remains an accepted truth within the scientific community. And, on the flip side of that coin, astrology can definitely be shown to be false. So that suddenly makes it legitimate, and now qualified as eligible to be considered scientifically? What the fuck? Something’s definitely not quite right with that line of reasoning. And that’s why the idea of falsifiability is an impotent repellent against the truth. Maybe this qualifier was concocted as a ward against a god theory, but other then that, it accomplishes very little else. Again, why would you need to falsify your own consciousness? Why, other then to create distractions in an attempt to preserve your delusion; which, only causes confusion and delays.

Awareness is the absolute truth, and no, you cannot falsify the truth, under any circumstances; otherwise it isn’t the truth. The truth is the truth, and falsehood is falsehood. That’s why truth and falsehood have two separate distinctions, instead of being considered as the same distinction. Truths are never conditionally false. The truth is always the truth. Only a falsehood has the potential to be considered as conditionally true; and that’s due to the designs of illusion; but, that’s not why we’re here today.

Why is awareness the undeniable default axiom of existence? Because it’s the foundation of everything, whatever you want to call that. Whether you wanna say it’s the foundation of being, of consciousness, of physics, of material universe, of existence, or of whatever else you can come up with, matters not. The context is awareness. And that’s why it’s the ONLY sure thing. It’s not that there’s an idea of a “mind-space” inherently within you, but rather, that “mind-space” is the inherent groundwork for consciousness. Understand, this is not just a conceptual theory. It’s already the case before the development of intelligence. You don’t look outwards for it. You are already it. And you were already it, before the expansion into advanced philosophical thinking. No, it’s not god. No, it’s not materiality. Those are all prime examples of making outward attributions; what I like to refer to as, externalizations. Stop wallowing in the confines of mental slavery. You are beyond anything found within the “mind-space.” You are pure potentiality itself.

Should you avoid negative thoughts??

Imagine a nice day…it’s your day off…you are fully relaxed lying on the grass and gazing into a sky… with the sun playing hide and seek with the clouds. You are feeling so deeply relaxed listening to the birds chirping, the soft breeze brushing against you…And then pure magic happens…You see a beautiful, absolutely amazing cloud in the sky…It’s simply magical…the suns rays falling on it give it a…

Along the course of coming up with a paragraph for my thesis, I have learned closer to heart what McLuhan meant by "technological stimulation of consciousness, when the creative process of knowing will be collectively and corporately extended to the whole of human society."

Religious folks seem want to ask, "if you don't believe in God, what do you believe in?"

Only everything, of course. Isn't everything enough? By "everything," I mean everything that we know exists. It really is a whole lot of stuff: everything.

I believe it to be a tragedy that so many people populate their minds with beliefs that may not be true. There is so much beauty in the known world, filling the mind with imagined things seems to be quite a waste. Even art that we know to be fictitious can move us to tears, but treating fictions as though they are real doesn't seem to be a valuable preoccupation of the mind.

And what do I value? I value family, compassion, joy, art, truth, and justice. I value friends and memorable experiences. I value the awe that proceeds from pondering my smallness compared to the entirety of reality. I value those who work to save lives and increase our knowledge of the world. I value evitability, and seek in all things to spread as much of it as is worth spreading; technology and free society affords us a wealth of possibilities, and spreading that to all people is a value worth dying for, I think.