Registered to post this in philosophy section but I am limited to here for now so I hope this isn't too off topic. Was hoping to find some minds more focused on the intellectual/free thinking side of the spectrum here. That way I might be able to discuss ideas/theories with someone other than myself. I feel gathering outside perspectives would help the understanding of things greatly...

Anyway so many ways to go about this discussion but let me start with a question...

Could death be interpreted as spontaneous enlightenment? Could the perpetuation of enlightenment be a driving force of existence?

Of course I use the term loosely as all words are inherently subjective through the human perspective at least in my experience... In this context I would define "enlightenment" more or less as transcendence of a certain degree of finites (singularities) which integrate together to form a framework for one's understanding of the present moment.

I typed this up rather quickly so if I worded in a way difficult to understand or any confusion let me know... And if this discussion is not fit for here maybe someone could propose another place for me to go? Thanks

Interesting questions and definitions.

My thoughts are as follows:
I don't know enough about death to even venture a guess for the first question. Having never died (I am still here) I can't say, and if I did die, (real death, which I define as irreversible and permanent) I would not be able to say, for then i would either not exist, or I would be something totally distinct from what I am now.

As for the second question, I think yes, in a psychological way an individual could feel compelled or driven in terms of their own existence to perpetuate enlightenment. However when I add your definition of enlightenment to this I have issues with it.

Could the perpetuation of transcendence of a certain degree of finites (singularities) which integrate together to form a framework for one's understanding of the present moment be a driving force of existence?

I see infinity as a singularity insofar as it entails totality. I also see the present moment as an instant that is singular and infinite and total. So cannot adequately answer your question from my own perspective.

I can say I do not think that existence is goal oriented, I don't think it has a purpose. I think the idea of purpose is abstract and does not exist outside of language. I am viewing purpose here as intentional function, if you remove the intention I see purpose as existing outside of language, for example teeth have a purpose, but I do not see an ultimate purpose or function of existence itself. Existence is also a rather abstract concept for me, very hard for me to comprehend as something outside of language, but I am not very intelligent so it makes sense that I could not understand the concepts of purpose and existence as independent of our own minds.

It might be hard to understand why I don't understand. It is like this, things exist, but existence does not exist, it is not a thing, thus it has no purpose or context. The same applies to the function of function or the purpose of purpose. A thing has a purpose, but purpose does not have a purpose etc.

Intriguing reply it seems you may have a very nice contrast to assist in my rethinking of ideas(which is kind of the point here) let me back up a bit though... We should probably take this discussion patiently... I find traveling through deep thought easily has a tendency for confusion leading to frustration and giving up so to speak... That is however only if one does not maintain what I am going to coin "residuality" of intent... in other words remember why you started thinking about something in the first place... Now do not confuse me to be stating any of this as fact... I strive to maintain utmost malleability to any and all of my ideas/beliefs (wouldn't even say they are mine either... they do not belong to me)

I see the concept I refer to as "singularity" as being described as either 1,0, or infinity in any given moment. (I will elaborate further when the time comes)

However I also see every "thing" we perceive to be inherently analogical... So putting those two concepts together... We make potentially infinitely interpretable "things" concrete moment to moment - changing them in a smooth coherent way usually...example: one word means something different to a different person.

I like your introduction of purpose and would like to incorporate that concept... Could purpose be seen as an infinite hierarchy? You are "given" purpose by something higher (your boss for a crude example) and you "give" purpose to something lower (people that work for you(again crude example))

Anyway I complexified this way too much... pick it apart and lets simplify this to fit into a "common ground" between our two perspectives... What is evolution of understanding but continuous expansion and contraction of "ideas"?

When you say 'enlightenment' how do you mean it?

Assuming you mean it in the way of all knowing, have you ever thought of it as though death may lead you onto yet another vehicle giving you more experience for 'enlightenment'. If we are just a subject of the experiment called life then what is to say we will ever achieve this pure form of mind state.

I could also compare enlightenment to knowing nothing in the sense of thinking of nothing and experiencing nothing except the present which constantly exists around you. Could that not be enlightenment itself? with thoughts only being a part of our survival system to assess a situation and act within it. Which would agree with death being spontaneous enlightenment if you did not think but forever lived in the present even as a non-physical form. How could you run into a problem if you wasn't thinking. (Make sense?)

As you said how people perceive what people write differently we may have to expand to base a foundation of what we are discussing.

I have found two very interesting topics by you enigmatic in the short time i have been here i would like to say nice to meet you i enjoy such philosophy.

-Technique

I was reading a trip report on erowid recently (in ayahasca vault, difficult experiences section if interested) titled "Enlightenment, no thank you". In it the poster was seeking "enlightenment". Then when approaching it, like a consious moth to a flame became scared of the flame and what it may of entailed and realized they'd rather keep what they had with a new appreciation.

I found that pretty interesting and have read and felt simlar before, i guess it's true with any unknown to some degree. Giving up indivuality seems to provoke terror while providing comfort...what a game.

Personally i like the theory that there's 1 being, "god" if you will, playing hide and seek with itself and can choose whatever it wants inclding at death.

Interesting ideas...

I have a very different take on it though. Before I comment on this further, though, I will mention that there is a pretty cool, long-running thread where we dissected this subject pretty well to the bone: https://www.dmt-nexus.me...;t=12511&find=unread Until you get full privileges here, you may not be able to post there, but you can still read our lengthy debates on the subject, and much of what you are opening up here was covered there.

You bring up the idea of death as equivalent with enlightenment, and I have heard people go down that road before... As Albert said, it is rather unlikely that you will find someone who has fully died to report back to you on it.

Near-Death Exeriences, though seem to suggest some measure of enlightenment might be involved, but who knows? Those people could just be experiencing a mad rush of neurotransmitters and DMT. There have been many people who have ostensibly died for fairly significant amounts of time and then managed to come back. I don't know how long you need to be dead for to distinguish yourself as being ressurected rather than simply having had a NDE.

My basic feeling on that is that we have no evidence to suggest that we are not already dead, or that there is even such a thing as being alive in the first place.

"The worst mistake that you can make is to think you're alive when really you're asleep in life's waiting room." Guy Forsyth

What we can say is that we have had tons of dreams, and we emerge from them into states that seem real enough, but are impossible to prove are not also dreams... only to eventually pass out and enter further dreamworlds that seem real enough to us no matter how obviously fake they seem upon our transcending them.

The fact that we have these dream experiences dozens or more times every night, but have never once been able to prove that we actually are really alive in a material creature with a lifespan way... suggests that we at least consider the possibility that this world is also a type of dream. It may be more stable than most, and seems to have consistent timelines and laws of nature... but we can not trust our senses or memory in dreams so who can say for sure. Our memories are perfectly capable of morphing to fit whatever odd situations we find ourselves in so that it all seems to fit very well in our current world concept.

The big hiccup in this unconscious acceptance of dreams is what we call lucidity.

As a regular lucid dreamer, I can say that becoming lucid in a dream is basically what I imagine enlightenment to be. We recognize the illusory nature of our surroundings, reintegrate lost elements of our sense of self so that we emerge into an effulgent Self (big S), we recognize that we are creating and maintaining the dreamworld around us, and we can do what we want within this world... or we can leave it and go anywhere else we want.

This is the case with becoming fully lucid anyway. Lesser lucid states include just the awareness that you are dreaming with no major transcendence, and various degrees of power over a dreamworld that one might have more or less ability to pierce. These lesser states could be akin to what are described in Eastern texts as satoris, siddhis, and perhaps even samadhi.

I have experienced plenty of states that resemble the descriptions of various minor and major kinds of enlightenment... both with and without psychedelics. But personally, I reserve the term enlightenment for that basically permanent shift in consciousness that means you never fall back asleep.

Well, that's my 2c. Have at it.


HF

I was about to post a link to that thread, but Hyperspace Fool beat me to it. Definitely worth a read.

You'll find many definitions of Enlightenment, especially amongst seekers in the psychedelic tradition. For what it's worth, here's mine:

We each possess a degree of enlightenment, in the same sense that we have a degree of physical fitness. If we do enough of the right kinds of work, we can increase our level of enlightenment and enjoy the rewards of existing more smoothly in this confusing reality. At the same time, slacking on that work leads to a decline in enlightenment, just as giving up exercise can lead to a decline in physical fitness.

Somewhere in this picture are those moments of clear light, total transcendence. But these states are almost impossible to maintain without chanting all day every day. For most of us, these transcendent glimpses give us a goal to set our compasses by before resuming the long, hard work of trying to get there.

As far as singularities go: it may be more useful to think in terms of event horizons. Singularities are absolute, while life in general has very few real absolutes on that kind of scale. The thing about an event horizon- or any kind of horizon- is that, by definition, you approach it but you never actually get there. With the goal of enlightenment, it may feel like you are approaching some magnificent singularity. But it is this approach, and the sense of purpose behind it, that energizes this journey. Actually reaching that singularity, and then sitting down to rest and enjoy the view, may only be an option upon death, if at all.

Here is what I think. "Enlightenment" to most is just a vague concept that many chase but never achieve. Like a horizon that can never be reached. Practical enlightenment, on the other hand, can come in many shapes and forms but to most it is the realization that we are insignificant beings that are interconnected by the inherent properties of reality. Many conclusions can be drawn from this.

I see no evidence that suggests that death leads to some form of enlightenment. I believe when you die your brain rots and decomposes. The end, no more consciousness. Of course I could be wrong but I think most people believe in an afterlife because it is comforting.

I, in this moment, see enlightenment more as an aspect to add to your "being/awareness/you"

So you find enlightenment... just means you can start thinking certain things in certain way.

Just because you have a fast car doesnt mean that it is as fast as it can be though.. there is always potential to "mod" or "improve"

so enlightenment is an infinite path.... the idealistic view of which is something only to be approached...

but anyway... death as a spontaneous addition of the aspect/concept of enlightenment... a door opens up basically...

its just a certain way of looking at things, which relative to our "here and now" seems to be "higher"

please offer up disagreements or comments