i only skimmed the OP.
as far as i understand it you can never experience freedom from life because death cannot be experienced. if you feel happy while your dying because your dying, well then good for you. id hate to feel regret - but it'd all be over soon
A reply to the question: honestly, do you really want freedom?
Death is freedom, a state of being void of all thoughts and attachments...
Thoughts are but a reflection of your past state, attachments an entity bound to your future state, and together they enslave a person to a reality of nothingness where the best scenario is death and the worst a contemplation of suicide.
In death reality is neither bound to the past nor the future because neither one exists, in death your existence is reborn to a reality living in the present grasping that feeling that seemed to always torment you and slip from the fringes of your mind -- happiness; the feeling of well being; a state where the current mind is one with your surroundings and your instinctual desires depicted by these present entities; the oneness of self.
Only in death can one be free and only in freedom can one be happy. So, do I truly want freedom, you ask? I want it with every living breath that I make, every step that I take, and every fiber of my being that lights my existence; The only thing in life that is important enough to die for, on more than one level...
YES, I agree with this 100%, and am glad I'm hearing this come from someone other than myslelf- the few people I've talked to this about haven't necessarily taken it the right way.
No one knows what lies out there for us after death- heaven, hell, in between, reincarnation- we have no idea. The simple idea of this unknowingness is freedom in and of itself- something that humans don't necessarily try to control. Death..such a complex concept, yet such a simple pattern..all part of a grand scheme of which we are merely passengers. It's completely unknown, yet it is what you make it, for the only time we're human enough to worry about it is during our darkest hours as humans..and then..complete and utter freedom- a release of these things called souls, and a vast expansion of possibilities that no human can ever even dream of opens up- but it's just that simple, that we don't know, life after death..or are we dead now, waiting lifelessly to be born? Could we be living but the split seconds preceeding birth? Birth to what? Obviously not life as we call this place life..but that it may not even be life at all and that we have a brand new set of trails out there somewhere- farther than any dream can venture, farther than any mind can slip into..something that is will always come, yet lack understanding..but that the understanding of it is that we don't know is the whole beginning to our realizations of death and to think people fear it?
Is it that by its indefiniteness it shadows forth the heartless voids and immensities of the universe, and thus stabs us from behind with the thought of annihilation, when beholding the white depths of the milky way?
What is a delusion?
It’s when one’s perception of reality isn’t compatible with the general concept of truth.
Here we face two problems:
if we can say that the general rule is ‘you walk into a wall you will hit the wall’.
Then you’d say that if that wall was really an optical illusion for example, there’d be honest ignorance.
Okay, so by this example, you are assuming the existence of *something*/a thing that is the truth --> cannot walk through walls, unless....
[and you give your two case scenarios]
But let’s take the concept of delusion to the field of research. Our instruments and technologies allow us to observe more and more accurately on the human, macro and nano+quantum scales.
So when the delusional man and the ignorant man meet this new situation, what are the grounds for calling one interpretation a delusional one and another honest poke in the dark made by the ignorant man?
We need to infer the mechanisms ruling the new grounds of reality we uncover and I don’t see how we can ‘honestly’ call the first a delusional man and the second an honest ignorant.
But, according to your above examples, you've pointed out that delusion is, yes, a discord from *something* that has been established as the truth. I.e., some-thing had to exist as a knowledge. I'd think that's the essential difference between delusion and ignorance. Once is a reactive commentary on a pre-existing something, other is a commentary based on a lack of something.
A man who wants to infer about certain phenomena in this universe, and applies the accelaration of gravity to be 2.34m/s^2, while his fellow colleagues are shouting 9.8m/s^2, versus, a man, who exists in a world where we don't know of 9.8m/s^2. Difference.
Therefore delusions seem to mostly apply to human scale and social interactions and are designed rather by norms than the purest empiricism. Now yes, if everybody could have absolute undeniable certainty of a perfect understanding the whole of the universe, then you'd be able to perfectly weed out delusions from a no longer existing state of honest ignorance.
This is an epistemological argument. What is true knowledge about knowlege? Beyond philosophy, we in our everyday world, and even within science, still go forth and accept some things, as *something*. We accept certain things as knowledge. Or approaching the limit of the infinite knowledge. So, it doesn't necessary need to be a sub-set of the whole, if our conceivability limits us such that knowledge is truly infinite, and we can't even conceive a whole. So, we do a bottom-up processing than a top-down. We start with parts, and build on it, and the next part that fits will have to be justified within the framework on which it is set. That is how we test whether we are 'wrong/going down the 'wrong' path/or merely ignorant to certain other mutually depending phenomena. We change our path accordingly.
However, if, in the face of all the above justification/discord of pattern, we still insist that our 'knowledge' fits (i.e., is still right)...that then I'd classify as delusion. Unless, one can justify why.
I’d have to disagree. If the ‘human truth’ is part of the whole and is therefore subject to corrections.
Those corrections are a part of a process, which process can be indefinitely divided and understood as a potentially infinite series going towards 1.
And 1 is 1 as a whole, the absolute truth is the universe, multiverse, or whatever is the last step. In other words, what we are talking about is simply Reality.
This Reality is a self contained system and not a process.
I can challenge you on why the knowlege of the universe = universe. Can knowledge supercede the thing on which the knowledge is based? Is knowlege always approaching the whole/thing?
Knowing about the apple allows us to know about leaves. Water. Rainfall. Sky. Each connects to the other. Becomes an infinite web-like structure, minus any real nucleus/center. That, to me, is knowledge. Thus, knowledge cannot approach an absolute truth of the whole/1. It is not linear. It is not compartmentalized into clean sub-sets. It is not approaching anything. You must justify why you believe the properties of knowledge to be what you say it is.
Well, It’s because this sphere isn’t self contained, it constantly adds new knowledge within its midst If the universe at any given time could be reduced to an X, and then at another time into an Y.
X would be equal to Y.
But the sum of the human knowledge constantly adding to itself would result into an X at T0 < Y at T1.
If the universe at any given time (as conceived by us/our knowledge) = X or Y, you mean?
If so, X /=/ Y. I don't understand the premise of your argument above. What is X or Y?
- The universe at a given time?
- Or, our understanding of the universe at a given time?
If it's the former, X = Y, regardless of how much we have gained in the sum total of human knowledge or not. Human knowledge will not affect the existence of the universe. Human knowledge therefore is redundant.
If it is the latter, then X /=/Y, hence, I can't follow your premise.
PS - Sum total of human knowledge. Interesting concept. I don't think I adhere to it though. I don't think knowledge can be as cleanly given to a linear relationship as you suppose.